View Full Version : I need you opinions on my Topic for my Paper!!
Hey guys, I'm only asking this here because I can trust you guys in your answers and not get shot down or some bogus answer. I know this isn't really related to CM but it has to do with WWII and you guys seem to be mature when it comes to discussing the topic(or at least I hope so).O yea, and it's due on Thursday the 1st of November. Im asking here because I don't want to sound...errr out of place with my thinking.
Okay, my topic has to do with Doublethink, a term that came from George Orwell's book 1984. The concept of doublethink is to believe in two conflicting beliefs or ideas like, "rap music degrades women, yet in my culture, we are taught to respect and honor women, but I still listen to rap."(that's not my topic). And for me since I take such a strong interest in WWII and modern military my topic is along those lines. My teacher tho, wants our topic to be relevant to other people and not just me so I am in some way "speaking for a group of people" and not for myself. I know I am naive in this area of the war comared to many if not all of you guys so if you find a fault take care in the
way you answer, I don't want any flame wars because I've noticed it can be a touchy subject sometimes. Thanks
Here's my topic:
"How can one look at WWII and thinkg that the allies committed no atrocities during the war, yet believe that the fire bomings of Dresden and Tokyo are not considered atrocities, but necessary actions to win the war?"
I only came up with this because I actually believed that the allies committed no atrocities until I started to delve into it a little more.
Again thanks for you time and interest.
Blackcloud6
30 Oct 07, 19:32
"How can one look at WWII and thinkg that the allies committed no atrocities during the war, yet believe that the fire bomings of Dresden and Tokyo are not considered atrocities, but necessary actions to win the war?"
Easy one. WWII was total war and the civilian populations of the combatants were considered a military asset. Some belived that breaking that asset's will to continue would result in an ending to the war. The idea was to force the population into believing they should give up the war or face utter destruction and possible annihilation. Unfortunately this strategy did not have the desired effect until the dropping of the Atom bombs on Japan, and even then it took the Emporer yo force the surrender.
One could argue that the annihilation strategy was immoral but hat is through hindsight, it was not largely viewed as such in 1944-45.
WWII was a terrible exercise in human warfe and pushed societies to the limits of destruction, morality, and hatred.
Even easier.
What do we consider an atrocity?
In ww2 the Nazis set out to eliminate a whole section of people from the face of the Earth. This includes Jews and Gypsies and also included subjugating in the extreme non Aryans.
The Allies, however bad the bombings were for the Axis didnt set out to eliminate the whole German or Japanese populace as their goal was to simply win a war in the quickest time. If this meant firebombing industrial centres that subsequently resulted in mass death, that doesnt mean it was designed as an atrocity.
Simply put. The Axis [both Germany and Japan] thought they had the right to exterminate what they didnt agree with, while the Allies [excluding Russia/Soviets] wanted to win a war.
The Soviets in my opinion were equally as bad as the Axis.
freightshaker
30 Oct 07, 22:18
You're applying todays morals and ethics to history from over 60 yrs ago. Bombing of civilians wasn't even against the Geneva Conventions until after WW2. Personally I'm very much against the 'Worker Relocation Campaign' but from the perspective of the British and US it was a way to get into the war and, being devote followers of Douhet, they felt that strategic bombing could break the will of the Germans. Some even believed it could end the war all together.
For something you might not have heard about, Google: Biscari
The first thing you should do is to define what an "atrocity" is for the purposes of your paper.
Once you've done that, you will be hard pressed to support an argument that the Western Allies did not commit atrocities or even that they committed no "serious" atrocities. On the atrocity front, the Soviets are right up there with the Nazi's--so that's not even going to be an issue with regard to them.
The Western Allies did kill POWs and those attempting to surrender. We undoubtedly did a bit more than waterboarding during the interrogations of some POWs and suspected sympathizers with our enemies.
Our pilots and gunners sometimes shot at enemy pilots and airmen who had ditched their planes. Unless they were Kamikazes (which even the Germans employed in limited numbers), I view these acts as atrocities (but others may not).
The Allies were going to prosecute Germany for its unrestricted submarine war until it was pointed out the the U.S. did essentially the same thing in the Pacific [I personally don't view either or these things as atrocities.]
There was no good military reason for the bombing of Dresden--certainly not the way it was done. I view this as an atrocity. On the other hand much of the Japanese war industry was conducted in individual homes. So on this basis alone, the firebombing of Japanese cities in my view was not an atrocity. In fact we knew that to defeat Japan without an invasion (or maybe even with it), we would have to completely break the spirit of that country and its leadership. Even after two nuclear bombs, the Emperor had to break the tie between those leaders who wanted to surrender and those who wanted to fight to the bitter end.
In a war as vast, long, with so many casualties and so much hatred, it would be beyond credulity to believe that atrocities were not committed by all major combatant nations. That said, the frequency and level of atrocities were much different from country to country. Germany, the Soviets and the Japanese were by far the worst offenders among the major powers. In the case of all three of these nations, the governments had policies and practices that they implemented that ordered/assured that large scale atrocities would result.
The first thing you should do is to define what an "atrocity" is for the purposes of your paper.
Atrocity kept coming up in my head when I was thinking about what to use. And in respect to the purpose I plan to use it in my paper, it was to show that even tho the Germans and Japanese were committing terrible atrocities(the Holocaust and the Bataan death march and the Japanese prison camps to name a few) obviously on a larger scale than anything the Western Allies did, yet the idea was to try and show that people do not like to believe that we had done any of that and fought a "good clean war" so-to-speak. I kinda hope that came out right.
Once you've done that, you will be hard pressed to support an argument that the Western Allies did not commit atrocities or even that they committed no "serious" atrocities. On the atrocity front, the Soviets are right up there with the Nazi's--so that's not even going to be an issue with regard to them.
That is true. You can argue hard about how in the Pacific that the fighting was brutal and that it was a "me or him" type war due to its intensity(probably stemming from the Bataan Death March). Yet, when you do think of WWII, it's mostly about the European Battlefield including the Mediterranean Theater and rarely the Pacific. I guess one could view it as a little more "civil" in Europe than it was in the Pacific. But then again since when was war ever civil?
Our pilots and gunners sometimes shot at enemy pilots and airmen who had ditched their planes. Unless they were Kamikazes (which even the Germans employed in limited numbers), I view these acts as atrocities (but others may not).
I agree but then so did the German pilots who are usually claimed to have initiated the action and so the allied airmen followed suit. Same goes for the Pacific.
The Allies were going to prosecute Germany for its unrestricted submarine war until it was pointed out the the U.S. did essentially the same thing in the Pacific [I personally don't view either or these things as atrocities.]
That's true but, then you could talk about the treatment of the German snipers that who delayed an advance by shooting an American soldier then surrendering only to get shot by angry American soldiers, or the treatment of any Japanese soldiers(you could make an argument there say that we could've had a lot more prisoners if we had actually taken them in). Man this is a tough topic.
There was no good military reason for the bombing of Dresden--certainly not the way it was done. I view this as an atrocity. On the other hand much of the Japanese war industry was conducted in individual homes. So on this basis alone, the firebombing of Japanese cities in my view was not an atrocity. In fact we knew that to defeat Japan without an invasion (or maybe even with it), we would have to completely break the spirit of that country and its leadership. Even after two nuclear bombs, the Emperor had to break the tie between those leaders who wanted to surrender and those who wanted to fight to the bitter end.
Easy one. WWII was total war and the civilian populations of the combatants were considered a military asset. Some belived that breaking that asset's will to continue would result in an ending to the war. The idea was to force the population into believing they should give up the war or face utter destruction and possible annihilation. Unfortunately this strategy did not have the desired effect until the dropping of the Atom bombs on Japan, and even then it took the Emporer yo force the surrender.-Blackcloud6
The Allies, however bad the bombings were for the Axis didnt set out to eliminate the whole German or Japanese populace as their goal was to simply win a war in the quickest time. If this meant firebombing industrial centres that subsequently resulted in mass death, that doesnt mean it was designed as an atrocity.-Geordie
Then how would you explain it these views? Those are quite reasonable and somewhat justifiable in a way(the V-Bombings and the Battle of Britain) and also have "some"[stretching that a little] logic to those lines of thinking. During my high school years(was not long ago), I've seen these views believed and actually argued for on a few occasions. Now whether or not they still think they were justifiable is not known.
In a war as vast, long, with so many casualties and so much hatred, it would be beyond credulity to believe that atrocities were not committed by all major combatant nations. That said, the frequency and level of atrocities were much different from country to country. Germany, the Soviets and the Japanese were by far the worst offenders among the major powers. In the case of all three of these nations, the governments had policies and practices that they implemented that ordered/assured that large scale atrocities would result.
Well said.
'shew'- I hope you kind of understand my err... answers/rebuttals. That was GREAT help btw Jag. Same to Geordie, Blackcloud6, frieghtshaker(thanks for the link man).
Well, after all of that I came to the idea that I can argue one side's view point of being informed to an extent while only going so far as to believe half of what one is told while not believing the rest. Have you ever seen that happen when discussing the topic or another topic related to the War with somebody else?
"Then how would you explain it these views? Those are quite reasonable and somewhat justifiable in a way(the V-Bombings and the Battle of Britain) and also have "some"[stretching that a little] logic to those lines of thinking. During my high school years(was not long ago), I've seen these views believed and actually argued for on a few occasions. Now whether or not they still think they were justifiable is not known."
For starters see:
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
and
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/9336-bombing-dresden-what.html
To accept the argument that you can morally drop very large numbers of bombs on cities because there is commerce, small amounts of war related production and such action will demoralize your enemy--allows you to kill mass numbers of enemy civilians (including large numbers of children) with nary a shrug.
Dresden was bombed in February 1945 when Germany was in its death throws. There was little in the category of military targets. In contrast there was much of value to German and world culture, not to mention more than a million men, woman and children. A massive tonnage of bombs was dropped--an amount that makes no sense in terms of legit military targets. This act has all the earmarks of revenge. My question back to you is: what was the moral/military justification for such an act--especially this late in the war and in light of the clearly intended/inevitable civilian deaths, injury and destruction, as well as the destruction of irreplaceable cultural treasurers?
Also beware of the argument that they did it first--so it's OK for us to do it to. While there are times that this may be necessary, it is a very slippery slope. You do not want to become too similar to the evil you are fighting.
KG_AirborneBob
31 Oct 07, 08:55
And as the saying goes..Warcrimes are defined by the victor!:smoke:
And as the saying goes..Warcrimes are defined by the victor!:smoke:Precisely! It could be argued that the Russians were among the worst in committing such crimes, yet AFAIK none were ever convicted.
As mentioned earlier, define your terms for atrocities and then objectively observe any actions in question. There will always be justifications for committing them by the offender, but that doesn't make them any less as war crimes. The Malmady (spelling) massacre was considered a war crime by the allies (200 US prisoners executed in the battle of the bulge), but how many Germans were executed after surrendering in engagements where the allies were "taking no prisoners", such as during the boccage battles, Normandy, etc. The results and intentions are the same but the winner gets to decide.
freightshaker
31 Oct 07, 16:55
The Allies were going to prosecute Germany for its unrestricted submarine war until it was pointed out the the U.S. did essentially the same thing in the Pacific [I personally don't view either or these things as atrocities.
They did prosecute Doenitz for unrestricted submarine warfare but the prosecution's case went down the tubes when US Navy personnel testified in Doenitz's defense that they conducted the same operations in the Pacific, as you said.
Also beware of the argument that they did it first--so it's OK for us to do it to. While there are times that this may be necessary, it is a very slippery slope. You do not want to become too similar to the evil you are fighting.
Warsaw and Rotterdam are often brought up as evidence of Germany striking the first blow but both cities were involved with ground operations, given ultimatums to evacuate military personnel, and were bombed in accordance with the Hauge Conventions in effect at that time. The 'inconvienient truth' is that both the US and Britain intended to conduct a strategic air campaign even before the war started. Britain's first bombing missions into Germany started 2 Sep 39. Germany did some terrible things from the air , Leningrad and Stalingrad come to mind, but their airforce was not designed for a strategic campaign.
The Malmady (spelling) massacre was considered a war crime by the allies (200 US prisoners executed in the battle of the bulge), but how many Germans were executed after surrendering in engagements where the allies were "taking no prisoners", such as during the boccage battles, Normandy, etc. The results and intentions are the same but the winner gets to decide.
Patton's Biscari massacre was quietly swept under the carpet as was Russia's Kaytn Froest massacre. History is written by the victor.
"Then how would you explain it these views? Those are quite reasonable and somewhat justifiable in a way(the V-Bombings and the Battle of Britain) and also have "some"[stretching that a little] logic to those lines of thinking. During my high school years(was not long ago), I've seen these views believed and actually argued for on a few occasions. Now whether or not they still think they were justifiable is not known."
For starters see:
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
and
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/9336-bombing-dresden-what.html
Thanks for the links. But I have to question that first one, why was it posted from that particular website?
To accept the argument that you can morally drop very large numbers of bombs on cities because there is commerce, small amounts of war related production and such action will demoralize your enemy--allows you to kill mass numbers of enemy civilians (including large numbers of children) with nary a shrug.
Kind of like being a sociopath right? Truthiness (http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm) in way.
Dresden was bombed in February 1945 when Germany was in its death throws. There was little in the category of military targets. In contrast there was much of value to German and world culture, not to mention more than a million men, woman and children. A massive tonnage of bombs was dropped--an amount that makes no sense in terms of legit military targets. This act has all the earmarks of revenge. My question back to you is: what was the moral/military justification for such an act--especially this late in the war and in light of the clearly intended/inevitable civilian deaths, injury and destruction, as well as the destruction of irreplaceable cultural treasurers?
Well, from what I read, it seems that the blame fell upon Harris while Churchill was the main architect behind the idea to bomb Dresden in the first place. Churchill's moral justification(from what I can grasp) was to show Stalin that "we" don't muck around either and can be ruthless. And if it is also true that one of Stalin's aids pushed for Dresden to be bombed, then imo, one should read about how the Russian's sacked Prussia and nearly destroyed that entire culture that existed there. So, to suffice it seemed that Churchill wanted to make a statement, it was a war of annihilation(as one could argue) and the Russian's wanted as much of Germany destroyed as possible as revenge for what Germany did to them(but they also did the Scorched Earth Policy), and the pilots were simply "following orders."
Also beware of the argument that they did it first--so it's OK for us to do it to. While there are times that this may be necessary, it is a very slippery slope. You do not want to become too similar to the evil you are fighting.
I am fully aware of this argument. Was it not the excuse the allies used time and again to justify some of their "war crime" related actions as well? Not to mention that I've heard it used a few times among people when talking about the war and also in books, mags, and docs and tv shows.
And I think that there is a way to incorporate that argument into the paper(which btw, was moved to next tuesday so I have more time now to work on it:halo:).
BTW, my intent with my counter arguments or questions are to help with the paper, and to also further the conversations so please do not get offended by them as they are meant to be constructive.
"Thanks for the links. But I have to question that first one, why was it posted from that particular website?"
I would certainly not cite the first as authoritative on the subject. It is interesting because it represents a particular point of view on the subject, and one that is supported by factual assertions that can be verified or disputed. The second link was an extended debate on a forum, showcasing numerous points of view. There has certainly been much written on Dresden. So there is plenty of information, scholarship and opinion available.
-----------------------------------
"...the pilots were simply "following orders."
I doubt that the pilots or anyone below very high levels in the military and civilian leadership knew anything near the full picture of Dresden at the time the bombs were dropped. For them it was yet another target. They certainly could not see much as they dropped their bombs from altitude, especially at night.
-----------------------------------
"BTW, my intent with my counter arguments or questions are to help with the paper, and to also further the conversations so please do not get offended by them as they are meant to be constructive."
Understood and no offense has been taken. In fact it reminds a bit of the give and take of law school.
"Thanks for the links. But I have to question that first one, why was it posted from that particular website?"
I would certainly not cite the first as authoritative on the subject. It is interesting because it represents a particular point of view on the subject, and one that is supported by factual assertions that can be verified or disputed. The second link was an extended debate on a forum, showcasing numerous points of view. There has certainly been much written on Dresden. So there is plenty of information, scholarship and opinion available.
That is true about the point of view which I thought was quite interesting.
And thanks for the second link. I haven't gone through the whole thread yet,just read the first 2 pages and it seems that everyone knows what they're talking about and kept their cool(which seems to be pretty rare these days). Did you take part in it?
"...the pilots were simply "following orders."
I doubt that the pilots or anyone below very high levels in the military and civilian leadership knew anything near the full picture of Dresden at the time the bombs were dropped. For them it was yet another target. They certainly could not see much as they dropped their bombs from altitude, especially at night.
Yea you could say that, OR, you could talk about the fighter pilots who went in and made some strafing runs at daybreak. And, Im sure that they didn't have the full picture, but, I wouldn't count out the fact that it wasn't hard to imagine what might have been going on down there after watching their "handy work" which was the fire starting up, and especially the following waves. There were stories of doors and whatnot floating up past the airplanes(same goes for the bombings of Tokyo).
"BTW, my intent with my counter arguments or questions are to help with the paper, and to also further the conversations so please do not get offended by them as they are meant to be constructive."
Understood and no offense has been taken. In fact it reminds a bit of the give and take of law school.
Yea, I saw the lawyer thingy in your profile and thought aww crap im screwed lol.
And as the saying goes..Warcrimes are defined by the victor!:smoke:
True, but sometimes the victor cannot always escape what it did during the war tho. You can look at Vietnam and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples. (Although it'd be really hard to look at the two current conflicts/wars/whatever Bush calls them next).
Precisely! It could be argued that the Russians were among the worst in committing such crimes, yet AFAIK none were ever convicted.
As mentioned earlier, define your terms for atrocities and then objectively observe any actions in question. There will always be justifications for committing them by the offender, but that doesn't make them any less as war crimes. The Malmady (spelling) massacre was considered a war crime by the allies (200 US prisoners executed in the battle of the bulge), but how many Germans were executed after surrendering in engagements where the allies were "taking no prisoners", such as during the bocage battles, Normandy, etc. The results and intentions are the same but the winner gets to decide.
Well, we won the war, did the VERY publicized war trial after it was all done, and then the Cold War came so I am not surprised that they were not convicted. Not to mention that Russia is still very intimidating.
One other side note about Dresden, aside from being an obvious war crime, was that there was a sizeable number of POWs located there at that time. Apparently these guys didn't have it too bad (comparatively speaking), often doing clean up type work thoughout the city and under minimal guard. I wonder how many were killed by their own bombers.
There was also a book a while back about alleged Eisenhower death camps for POWs after the war, claiming around a million German soldiers died from starvation, disease and exposure. I'm not sure how much proof there was to this but it's obviously something that wouldn't be bragged about on the allied end if it was true.
There was also a book a while back about alleged Eisenhower death camps for POWs after the war, claiming around a million German soldiers died from starvation, disease and exposure. I'm not sure how much proof there was to this but it's obviously something that wouldn't be bragged about on the allied end if it was true.
Yea, I heard about that recently too. It just kind of popped up all of a sudden.
Well I turned the paper in today. Depending on the grade I receive on it, I may or may not post it on here;)
Mad Russian
10 Nov 07, 14:32
Precisely! It could be argued that the Russians were among the worst in committing such crimes, yet AFAIK none were ever convicted.
As mentioned earlier, define your terms for atrocities and then objectively observe any actions in question. There will always be justifications for committing them by the offender, but that doesn't make them any less as war crimes. The Malmady (spelling) massacre was considered a war crime by the allies (200 US prisoners executed in the battle of the bulge), but how many Germans were executed after surrendering in engagements where the allies were "taking no prisoners", such as during the boccage battles, Normandy, etc. The results and intentions are the same but the winner gets to decide.
Check into the US 3rd Armored Divisions response to SS troops after General Rose was killed and rumored to have been targeted because he was Jewish.
This is just one example of the victors use of "might makes right".
Good Hunting.
MR
Mad Russian
10 Nov 07, 14:37
There was also a book a while back about alleged Eisenhower death camps for POWs after the war, claiming around a million German soldiers died from starvation, disease and exposure. I'm not sure how much proof there was to this but it's obviously something that wouldn't be bragged about on the allied end if it was true.
In any conflict where there are large numbers of prisoners being taken that issue is raised. The MAIN concern for an army is it's own fighting men. Not POWs. POWs come in at best a distant second and usually a distant fourth or fifth in importance.
The Eastern Front is rife with examples of such treatment as well.
Any side that is losing and is having a hard time feeding it's own troops and population is automatically going to feed the POWs less.
Just some thoughts.....
Good Hunting.
MR
In any conflict where there are large numbers of prisoners being taken that issue is raised. The MAIN concern for an army is it's own fighting men. Not POWs. POWs come in at best a distant second and usually a distant fourth or fifth in importance.
The Eastern Front is rife with examples of such treatment as well.
Any side that is losing and is having a hard time feeding it's own troops and population is automatically going to feed the POWs less.
Just some thoughts.....
Good Hunting.
MRThis is all true, but the book in question pointed out that there were tons of supplies designated for that purpose sitting in docks not that far away. Most were never distributed to that cause. Other examples were cited, such as ex-SS units being executed in in large numbers in French POW camps. I didn't read the book, just the review at a military history book club.
The point is when is it a war cime and when not, to 'exterminate' large numbers of POWs. And this was after the war, not during. I'm sure the Japanese and Germans were not excused for their considered mistreatments of allied and Russian POWs.
What is the typical military policy regarding POWs and length of detainment time after hostilities have ceased? Are they detained for years, or just long enough to let them all die by 'natural' causes?
Poor Old Spike
14 Nov 07, 13:08
My mother was 18 when the Luftwaffe bombed Leicester (England) in a 1940 night raid, it killed a fair number of civilians but she and her family hurried to the local air raid shelters and survived.
"Were you scared?" I asked her years later.
"I don't think so" she replied "in fact the target marker flares looked quite pretty drifting down overhead in the night sky"
(She died aged 76 in 1999)
The moral is that we have to put ourselves in the place of British civilians who were being bombed to better understand the mindset of those times, and I daresay the consensus of public opinion would have been - "they're bombing us so why shouldn't we bomb Dresden or anywhere else?"
Bomber Harris typified that mindset nicely -
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them.
At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation.
They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
WIKI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Travers_Harris
Here's my topic:
"How can one look at WWII and thinkg that the allies committed no atrocities during the war, yet believe that the fire bomings of Dresden and Tokyo are not considered atrocities, but necessary actions to win the war?"
I only came up with this because I actually believed that the allies committed no atrocities until I started to delve into it a little more.
Again thanks for you time and interest.
Kawaiku,
Really good topic, although I suspect it will be difficult to limit yourself to the double-think aspect, and not go off into overt detail land-which could be distracting to the general reader. Wish I would have come to this link earlier, even if I am crashing the party a bit. I suspect it difficult to get one's hands around two such very complex topics at once.
As per your topic....
I think much of the conflict/definition of action comes from the persepective of the reader. Both mindset of the culture, and the difference of immediate verses longer anaylsis. For instance the Japanese culture would likely hold a very different thought on what is an assault to human decorm, than would the American (are they both valid, now there is a mighty deep well to dig oneself into). Also an American look years later, verses one when one is directly involved at the time, is going to be different. (have you ever been involved in a fight or even an arguement and said/did things you wouldn't later---looking back or from a different perspective (say as an observer) the reality is different.) Are the current thoughts or actions we would take with a time machine different for an invasion of Iraq today then it was in the past, might be another comparison?
As for atrocities, sure we definitely committed them--on any number of scales. They are also likely subjective to a degree in the realm of mankind, rather than a supreme beings. Are the atrocieties commited by the Americans less so, certainly--and would likely be no matter from our perpective, as already mentioned history is written by the victors in most cases (we are more likely to excuse our actions--valid or not)--note my double thinks if I am correct in the concept. Imagine history written by the victorious NAZI's. It would be different and certainly not something I would agree with. How they could see it otherwise is beyond me, but I suspect it would be justified--and in their case maybe the villian would be Jews rather than the Nazi's would have generated the terrrible war--using the world as its pawn. Like I stated, I'm glad we stood up for our system of beleifs, and didn't let them win.
Mike
"they're bombing us so why shouldn't we bomb Dresden or anywhere else?"
Bomber Harris typified that mindset nicely -
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them.
For the sake of argument, if I have my history channel data correct, then it was the allies that started the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, not the Germans. It occurred with a raid on Berlin one night and sent Hitler over the edge (not that this was difficult to do). Up until that time the Luftwaffe was hitting primarily military targets (or trying to) which was beginning to take it's toll on the Brit war machine. After the Berlin raid on civilians, Hitler decided to level London (or attempted to) and pulled the airforce off of the military targets in retaliation. So while that worked out very well for the British war effort it didn't fare too well for the civilian population.
Another factor to consider is that the Germans simply didn't have the resources to wipe out whole cities for the sake of killing civilians. They could barely supply their military for it's purposes. The same can't be said of the US who seemed to have unlimited resources for wiping out cities.
freightshaker
14 Nov 07, 23:03
Bomber Harris typified that mindset nicely -
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them.
At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation.
They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
What I find amusing is that both Warsaw and Rotterdam were legitimate military targets of ground operations. What's even more amusing is that Harris commanded a force designed, before the war, specifically for strategic bombing while the Luftwaffe was a tactical airforce. Britain and the US were devout followers of Douhet and his theory of strategic bombing. It was the Allied plan even before the first shots were fired.
The Luftwaffe did some terrible things, Leningrad and Stalingrad come to mind, but that in no way excuses the conduct of the Allied 'relocation' program.
Lucker,
I think you have it right in the fact that the Axis airforces just were not capable of pulling a bombing like that forth. At one time or another they probably wanted it, but thier planes were not equiped for such a mission--so I might argue with intent--who went first might also be open to discussion, depending on the level one wishes to go to.
Frieghtshakers, arguement about Douhet also has some truth in it. What also seems true also, is that they undercalculated the level of damage necessary for victory via the air. Raining down bombs, on the population left them in a number of bad situations, but not empowered to rise up against the failures to protect citizens. In fact it may have raised their resolve to some degree--look at Hitler's attempt to kill the British Isle's morale--it became rather the opposite.
Btw--I'm not sure that Douhet's theories were not embraced by both sides to a degree. The calculation of the type of aircraft needed and the methoed of implementation was different, however.
Mike
Mad Russian
15 Nov 07, 00:58
What also seems true also, is that they undercalculated the level of damage necessary for victory via the air. Raining down bombs, on the population left them in a number of bad situations, but not empowered to rise up against the failures to protect citizens. In fact it may have raised their resolve to some degree--look at Hitler's attempt to kill the British Isle's morale--it became rather the opposite.
Btw--I'm not sure that Douhet's theories were not embraced by both sides to a degree. The calculation of the type of aircraft needed and the methoed of implementation was different, however.
Mike
Bombing governments, military and civilains makes them mad. It does not bring them to their knees. Even by todays standards with Shock and Awe in Iraq only ground troops win the war.
It not only "might have raised their resolve", there hasn't been a single major air campaign in world history that has achieved anything like the results they thought they could attain.
IT ALWAYS RAISES THEIR RESOLVE!!
Good Hunting.
MR
Bombing governments, military and civilains makes them mad. It does not bring them to their knees. Even by todays standards with Shock and Awe in Iraq only ground troops win the war.
It not only "might have raised their resolve", there hasn't been a single major air campaign in world history that has achieved anything like the results they thought they could attain.
IT ALWAYS RAISES THEIR RESOLVE!!
Good Hunting.
MR
Exception: Japan in 1945. No firebombings, no A-bombs = invade Japan in 1946.
Exception: Japan in 1945. No firebombings, no A-bombs = invade Japan in 1946.
KG_Jag,
Yes, it made for a more rapid pace of surrender, but there was also a peace party present in Japan which was gaining momentum. It is likely they would have gained the ear of the emperor as time passed. Japan was beaten, and famine and war damage would have likely made surrender possible before 1946. Not sure it would have happened, however, very quickly. They could have been starved out towards surrender eventually without much of the firebombing of 1945--is that a greater autrocity--yet, another question. Good example, however, even if I can't go 100% agreement.
Mike
What I find amusing is that both Warsaw and Rotterdam were legitimate military targets of ground operations. What's even more amusing is that Harris commanded a force designed, before the war, specifically for strategic bombing while the Luftwaffe was a tactical airforce. Britain and the US were devout followers of Douhet and his theory of strategic bombing. It was the Allied plan even before the first shots were fired.
The Luftwaffe did some terrible things, Leningrad and Stalingrad come to mind, but that in no way excuses the conduct of the Allied 'relocation' program.How were Warsaw and Rotterdam legit military targets when they were bombed?
Poor Old Spike
15 Nov 07, 08:02
If I'd been in charge of RAF Bomber Command in WW2 I'd have visited all the bomber stations to make speeches something like this -
"We are going to destroy every German city, town and village one by one, night after night, month after month, year after year for as long as it takes until the whole of Germany is one heap of rubble or until Hitler surrenders.
We are not out to kill civilians, so if they've any sense at all, they'll hurry to the air raid shelters when they hear their air raid sirens.."
Poor Old Spike
15 Nov 07, 08:06
Does anybody here play 'Civilisation'?
What a luxury it is to at last be able to destroy whole cities with one nuke missile and bring the war to a quick end after long hard centuries of trying to do it with sticks and stones..;)
Gen. Douglas MacArthur - "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it"
In one of my early Cmbb ladder games when I was a green rookie I decided to buy 15 x T-34/76's and sent them in one huge herd against my opponent who was a Rugged Defense ladder top-ranker, and I won.
"Wow" he said about the herd, "I've never seen anything like that before"
I remember thinking "What does he mean? Is he saying other CM players don't do that??? Haven't they heard old military maxims such as -
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can.." - Gen U.S. Grant
"The more you use [tanks], the fewer you lose" - Brit WW2 tank cmdr Cyril Joly
"The English attack at Cambrai for the first time revealed the possibilities of a great surprise attack with tanks" - Von Hindenburg
"That's what I need! That's what I want to have!" (Hitler at Kummersdorf tank demonstration 1933)
Hitler (travelling in car with Guderian in Poland after surrender) -"Our dive-bombers did that? (pointing to devastation)
Guderian - "No, our tanks"
"The day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire." - Rommel
"Punch with your fist and not with spread fingers" - Guderian
"War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts" - Patton
PS - Needless to say, in warfare the same principles apply not just to tanks but to bombers and everything else..
"Make war as you make love - quickly, brutally, decisively!" - Poor Old Spike
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/WPCTIA.png
freightshaker
15 Nov 07, 18:40
How were Warsaw and Rotterdam legit military targets when they were bombed?
Warsaw and Rotterdam were under attack from ground units when they were bombed. Both were given ultimatums for the removal of military units, Warsaw's was ignored and Rotterdam's was complied with late but air units could not be recalled from the mission( this could be a separate thread in itself). No treaties were agreed upon before the war so the most current treaty were the Hague Conventions of 1907. Obviously military aircraft did not exist at that time but the rules for Naval and Land bombardments were found to be applicable to aerial bombardments. these are excepts from Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV):
Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
You might want to compare the definition of 'war crimes' with this quote from 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." - Winston Churchill, 28 Mar 1945
" (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;"
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawre.htm
The Hague Rules of Air Warfare were drafted in 1923 but were never signed before the opening of hostilities.
If I'd been in charge of RAF Bomber Command in WW2 I'd have visited all the bomber stations to make speeches something like this -
"We are going to destroy every German city, town and village one by one, night after night, month after month, year after year for as long as it takes until the whole of Germany is one heap of rubble or until Hitler surrenders.
We are not out to kill civilians, so if they've any sense at all, they'll hurry to the air raid shelters when they hear their air raid sirens.."
Well... in that case I wouldn't be alive if that really happened. My grandma's city(Wiesbaden) got bombed rather good and the street next to hers actually got hit by several fire bombs, and she told me that they would hurry to the air raid shelters when they hear their air raid sirens and barely make it in time to the shelter just as the bombs began to strike. Sometimes they'd out run each other or wouldn't have to time to make it so they'd huddle together with her sister and mom in their house waiting out the bombing(not fun stuff at all).
So in the end, I take it that your speech right there is a way of giving yourself an excuse to German bomb cities intentionally while blaming them for not surviving your bombing attacks?
And unless I read that wrong... I'd have to say you're sounding pretty much like a cold-hearted killer there.
Now, say if it was a modern war, more modern than Vietnam? Would you do the same thing to an enemy nation? Without nuclear weapons?
Warsaw and Rotterdam were under attack from ground units when they were bombed. Both were given ultimatums for the removal of military units, Warsaw's was ignored and Rotterdam's was complied with late but air units could not be recalled from the mission( this could be a separate thread in itself). No treaties were agreed upon before the war so the most current treaty were the Hague Conventions of 1907. Obviously military aircraft did not exist at that time but the rules for Naval and Land bombardments were found to be applicable to aerial bombardments. these are excepts from Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV):
Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
I thought rotterdam was bombed before ground fighting even came close to the city?
As for Warsaw... I do not know too much of the background of what happened there.
You might want to compare the definition of 'war crimes' with this quote from 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." - Winston Churchill, 28 Mar 1945
" (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;"
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawre.htm
The Hague Rules of Air Warfare were drafted in 1923 but were never signed before the opening of hostilities. Interesting quote with Churchill and the definition of War Crimes below. After reading through the links that Jag gave me and some personal digging around, it seems a little ironic.
freightshaker
15 Nov 07, 23:42
I thought rotterdam was bombed before ground fighting even came close to the city?
"The situation in Rotterdam on the morning of 13 May 1940, was one of stalemate. The Dutch garrison forces under the command of Colonel Scharroo securely held the north bank of the Nieuwe Maas River, which runs through the city. On the south bank were the remnants of the German airborne forces of General Student, who had been facing the Dutch since 10 May, and the newly arrived ground forces under General Schmidt (based on the 9th Panzer Division and the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, a motorized "SS" regiment). A Dutch counterattack led by the marine regiment had failed to re-capture the Willemsbrug road bridge, the key crossing over the river. A last gasp effort by the Dutch air force to destroy the bridge had also failed. Gen. Schmidt had planned for a combined assault the next day, 14 May. The tanks of the 9th Panzer supported by flame throwers and combat engineers. The "SS" were to make an amphibious crossing of the river farther upstream and then make a flank attack through the Kralingen district. The attack was to be preceded by a massive artillery bombardment, while Gen. Schmidt had secured the support of the Luftwaffe in the form of a gruppe of Ju-87 Stuka dive-bombers.
The command situation in the German HQ on May 13 was confused. Gen. Schmidt's newly established XXXIX Corps was to control all ground operations, but Gen. Student remained in overall command, and also controlled all air operations. Gen. Schmidt's request for air support had to go through Gen. Student's HQ. On the evening of May 13, Gen. Student met with a Luftwaffe officer who had flown out to his HQ at Rijsoord to settle the details of the air bombardment the next day. There are no surviving documents to indicate what those details were. After the war, Lackner indicated that Gen. Student had requested a Bombenteppich, or a carpet bombing attack. Instead of the "pin-point" tactical support delivered by the "Stukas", a massed attack by He-111 medium bombers was instead put in place. This change could only have come from the top levels of the Luftwaffe command, possibly by Gen. Student himself in conjunction with Reichsmarschall Goering, thus bypassing General Kesselring, Gen. Student's rival, but technically superior, commander.
Before launching his attack, Gen. Schmidt attempted to get Col. Scharroo to surrender the city without a fight. Col. Scharroo saw no immediate reason to surrender, and stretched out negotiations. The original start time for the attack had been set for 13:20. Gen. Schmidt postponed this to 16:20 and requested a delay in the aerial attack. However, just as the Dutch negotiator was crossing over the Willemsbrug to relay this information, the drone of heavy bombers was heard. A total of 90 bombers from squadron "KG54" arrived over the city at the old start time and at least 57 craft dropped their full load of bombs (according to German sources, consisting of 158×250 kg and 1150×50 kg bombs). Why the formation had not received the abort mission order sooner remains controversial. Some believe that the red flares, which the Germans claimed were meant to signal abort mission but which the pilots allegedly failed to see, were in fact used by the Germans to show their location in the city. This was common practice and was done to avoid friendly fire. Supposedly the bombing was all part of the plan or the revenge of Marshal Goering for the loss of planes which he had suffered during the attack on the Netherlands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Rotterdam
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0995d.asp
Thanks. Very interesting.
Supposedly the bombing was all part of the plan or the revenge of Marshal Goering for the loss of planes which he had suffered during the attack on the Netherlands.
Funny how everything boils down to, "an eye for an eye" eh?
freightshaker
16 Nov 07, 16:11
Thanks. Very interesting.
Funny how everything boils down to, "an eye for an eye" eh?
Therein lies the problem of using Wikipedia as a reference.
"Some believe that the red flares, which the Germans claimed were meant to signal abort mission but which the pilots allegedly failed to see, were in fact used by the Germans to show their location in the city. This was common practice and was done to avoid friendly fire. Supposedly the bombing was all part of the plan or the revenge of Marshal Goering for the loss of planes which he had suffered during the attack on the Netherlands."
This is an opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I use Wiki because it is easier than typing excepts from a book. I guess I'm just lazy :).
Poor Old Spike
16 Nov 07, 17:31
So in the end, I take it that your speech right there is a way of giving yourself an excuse to German bomb cities intentionally while blaming them for not surviving your bombing attacks?
And unless I read that wrong... I'd have to say you're sounding pretty much like a cold-hearted killer there.
Now, say if it was a modern war, more modern than Vietnam? Would you do the same thing to an enemy nation? Without nuclear weapons?
If I was the Big Boss Commander I'd do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy as quickly and as decisively as possible, using all the fearsome weapons at my disposal in order to earn my pay and to repay the trust the people put in me by appointing me to the job..
Hey, hear the joke currently going round the net?
Lesbian - "This is my new boyfriend, he's a leftie anti-war protester"
Her girl pal - "Huh? I thought you didn't like men?"
Lesbian - "I don't, but I love pussies"..
This is an opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I use Wiki because it is easier than typing excepts from a book. I guess I'm just lazy :). I've also found that problem with Wikipedia. There seems to be too much emotional opinion on some subjects, rather than an objective presentation. You have to sift through it sometimes and weed out the crap.
You should only use wikipedia as a reference source for further researching topics. Going to Wiki for any serious research is bound to be 50/50. Anyone can input info, so it's best used to find references at the bottom of the page imho. Funny thing about it is that my history teacher gave my class a link in wiki to use lol....Ooops!
Hey guys, there is an article called Superfortress Offensive: Devestating Firebomb Raids in WWII History magazine which came out !JUST! after my paper was due( how ironic). I have yet to read the article, which mainly focuses on the firebombings of Japanese cities, but it looks to be a really good read on the subject that we are discussing here in the thread. If anyone is interested, I'd suggest to go out and buy the mag... if it's available anyways.
Poor Old Spike
17 Nov 07, 21:14
Speaking of Japan, the Doolittle Raid was fabulous, but some wimp in Washington ordered them not to touch the Imperial Palace.
If I'd been planner for the raid I'd have made it a priority target..:)
There was also a book a while back about alleged Eisenhower death camps for POWs after the war, claiming around a million German soldiers died from starvation, disease and exposure. I'm not sure how much proof there was to this but it's obviously something that wouldn't be bragged about on the allied end if it was true.
Got a link about a review of that whole situation there from my mom:
http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm
Pretty good read.
Blackcloud6
18 Nov 07, 19:52
Too much is written about the PRC that says "don't worry, we're still ahead of them." Yet they are narrowing the gaps faster than expected. PRC is aiming at strategic surprise in several areas. Generally, we should be beefing up defense spending in several areas to make sure we keep our lead,and start looking for assymetries we can use against them.
Looks like the making of an internet legend to me based on the writingins of disgruntled soldiers.
I'd wait for real historians to write on this before giving it any creedence.
By the way, look up the conditions of Camp Lucky Strike and you'll see we didn't take crareof our own very well either.
Looks like the making of an internet legend to me based on the writingins of disgruntled soldiers.
I'd wait for real historians to write on this before giving it any creedence.
My questions to that are what is a real historian, and why are they necessarily better then the soldiers who experienced it? If you are speaking of someone who is relying on 'official war dept records and statistics', who wasn't intimately involved and is writing from a remote viewpoint, then I cannot honestly say that I would trust that data as being gospel any more then from the mouth of a survivor; particularly if there are episodes that aren't favorable to that side and perhaps shouldn't be known about.
Mad Russian
18 Nov 07, 22:15
Well the last time we waited for confirmation on the intentions of an Asian country we ended up with Pearl Harbor and lots of real historians have written about it now.
Good Hunting.
MR
Blackcloud6
18 Nov 07, 22:43
My questions to that are what is a real historian, and why are they necessarily better then the soldiers who experienced it? If you are speaking of someone who is relying on 'official war dept records and statistics', who wasn't intimately involved and is writing from a remote viewpoint, then I cannot honestly say that I would trust that data as being gospel any more then from the mouth of a survivor; particularly if there are episodes that aren't favorable to that side and perhaps shouldn't be known about.
Some Private, who may have been 18-19 at the time, pissed off about something and the highest officer he dealt with was a Captain, about 20-22 himself probably does not tie any event back to policy or orders of Eisenhower. And recollections 30-50 years later are not always the best and who knows what ax there is to grind.
Who knows, maybe the Captain didn't like Germans. Or, there were huge supply problems getting enough food to the POW camps as well as feeding many nations of people whose infrastructure was lying in ruins. The order may have been to restrict rations to the minimal in order to feed everyone. And Captains do not need to explain why they give orders to Privates.
Sorry, I need way much more than statements of a few who were there.
Orders are published, policy is always written. There is always a paper trail of something as large as this. The Germans kept excellent records of the crimes they committed.
If you are writing history, don't act like a journalist. Your burden of verification is very high. And it is professional and ethical to do so.
The web site you pulled the 'article: from is far from being either professionally journalistic nor one of verified history.
When in the business of analyzing writing, one must be skeptical to a healthy degree, especially with stuff on the Internet. That paper could be completely made up.
There is always a paper trail of something as large as this. The Germans kept excellent records of the crimes they committed. Of this I am not that certain. Because the Germans kept such excellent records does not mean that every nation did. Particularly in a situation like this amidst all of the after war chaos, and when certain decisions could be viewed as highly questionable. I am not claiming it's all true, but neither would I dismiss it out of hand because it isn't popular.
While a good historian should cite all of his reference material, the angle given could still be tainted by way of citing only those references that coincide with the viewpoint that the author is pushing while at the same time leaving out those that do not fit. Have there ever any confilcting "historic" views over the decades?
Poor Old Spike
19 Nov 07, 08:05
One of the best WW2 books around is 'Struggle for Europe' by Chester Wilmot
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Struggle-Europe-Wordsworth-Military-Library/dp/1853266779
because he includes copies and quotes of orders, communiques and directives etc issued by German and Allied commanders at the time, great stuff.
As regards books written by people who were there such as Mansteins 'Lost Victories', Guderians 'Panzer Leader', von Mellenthins "Panzer Battles' etc, they're highly useful too, but the authors naturally won't put anything in that makes them look too bad, so in that respect they're not the whole truth.
For example, Guderian says "Manstein was never at his best during discussions with Hitler", implying he was a wimp, yet Manstein says "Hitler tried to order me around but I usually got my own way", so who are we to believe?
(PS - if you buy Wilmots 'Struggle for Europe' make sure its not another one of the same title written by somebody else which is nothing to do with WW2)
Lurker
A historian by training should be more objective, and have to face a peer review. Most studies aren't as glamourous or as big sellers, but rather designed for a small audience. They have more background and hopefully have looked at things from a number of angles (they also likely have studied the smaller less exciting details which lead to a bigger understanding of what was going on). That said, there has been controversy, at times.
Mike
freightshaker
20 Nov 07, 16:36
Lurker
A historian by training should be more objective, and have to face a peer review.
I'm no historian, but I try to look at what was done more than who did it. Nationalism seems to play a bigger part in history than it should, as evidenced on this forum and even more so on the 'other' side.
That said, there has been controversy, at times.
Mike The point I was getting at. :)
HIYA guys! I got an A- on the paper! Woot woot! If any of you guys wanna read it and give me your comments on it. I'll post it here or e-mail it to ya'll.
Thanks all for the HELP!! Much appreciated.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.