USA and strategic bombing

I may be 'pretending' but you are being disingenuous. From the comfort of our 21st Century armchairs the killing of civilians quite rightly seems highly unpleasant. But WWII was about 'killing Germans' and as Group Captain Hamish Mahaddie bluntly says in the introduction to the 'World At War' documentary from the 1970s - 'If old Granny Schicklgruber got the chop - that's just too bad'.

Here here.

 

Eh....how did me, a peaceful loving chap get involved in killing....

The primary task of all servicemen, of any nation, whether cook, blanket stacker, stoker or flight line mechnic...is not to go skiing in Val de Sair or wherever...its actually to kill.

If you pull on the uniform whether conscripted, drafted or volunteer, that may one day be your task.

You do it with the grace and on behalf of ;your natioh and people, you dont do it because you decide its a good idea, threfore the bomber crews acted on our behalf.

Protests on wars, folk on streets, notwithstanding...if we didnt want it to happen especially today...It wouldnt happen.

Bomber crews did not mercilessly kill for killings sake, and neither were there such things as bombing for peace.

The second world war more so than those of today was for some a war of survival.

But the bomber war was no different to the aircrews and groundcrews as it was to the other services if completed on a different plane, no pun intended was going to say axis but that would have been no better...It was giving it back...some took it and wanted, demanded it be given back...to decompartmilise this into an argument between allies as to who killed most and why...the reason why is simple...total war...the most...I dont know...I know it was done in my name...our parents didnt get the luxury of buying the badge not in my name as we do today.

The thread starter has not been back a while...perhaps that was the intent when the word merciless was first used...

 

You can spin it anyway you want; near, far, next to, or in the next county. All I'm claiming is that the rail marshaling yard was close enough to the center of town to be part of the targeting data for the Munster mission. You want to dispute that, be my guest. It makes sense that the rail workers' residential neighborhood would be near the rail yard, so I think it's reasonable to accept that it was possible to hit the residences by establishing the aiming point within the confines of the rail yard.

Their was never any intent to hit the cathedral, as you seemed to imply, and no reason for the USAAF to waste bombs on it, But apparently the rail yard was close enough to the church to be hit using the same aiming point.

As for being disingenuous, no more than you. You actually failed to mention that there was ANY military target in Munster in your first post, making it sound like it was simply a terror raid, pure and simple. If that's not "disingenuous", nothing is.

Accurate bombing? Please let's not raise another issue in order to confuse the matter further. I have never claimed the USAAF was accurate in their bombing, far from it. I have admitted that USAAF bombs would inevitably fall all over a city-sized target. It was that fact that the USAAF was counting on to cover with a veneer of legitimacy what may have been their real intent; to kill as many rail workers as possible.

 

Well, at least we can be disingenuous together and agree that one man's veneer of legitimacy is another's hypocrisy.....

 

remember that the Allies wanted to "crush the soul (moral) of the German people" in any way shape or form, if this included targets other than a military target then so be it, hard to accept but truth. I can think well aware of some of my relatives in op Thunderclap in 45, farming peaceably and being bombed and strafed, running for their lives. It happened and it was done ................

 

The B29 raids against Japanese cities usually consisted of 50% high explosives and 50% incindieries. Of course economic and industrial targets were important. But, equally important was destroying morale. We knew thier houses were made mostly of light wood and paper, thus the use of the incindieries. After testing the nuclear bomb we also knew it would be good for much more than targeting industry and the Japanese war economy. The intent to kill "mercilessly" was always a factor. Even strictly bombing industrial and economic targets affected morale. Japanese workers ceased to want to get out bed in the morning and go to work knowing they could be bombed.

 

Yes, in many cases, the incendiaries were considered more important than the the explosive bombs, for, especially in Japan, it was the fires more than the explosions which did the real damage. And in Japan, industry was much more labor-intensive than in other belligerent nations, so by destroying residential areas, killing industrial workers, and persuading the survivors to leave the cities, industrial production was greatly affected. The Japanese themselves made the task easier by dispersing their industrial capacity among small family-owned shops located in residential neighborhoods, thus turning these areas into legitimate military targets for the B-29's.

In Japan, the USAAF never lacked for military targets in any of the cities they attacked with either incendiary or high explosive bombs. Even the atomic bombs were targeted on numerous military and industrial installations scattered around both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In April, 1945, the Japanese government had promulgated a law inducting the majority of Japanese civilians into a military body called the Patriotic citizens Fighting Corps. This group was under military discipline, required to bear arms, and subject to orders issued by local military officers. This qualified them as military personnel as defined in the Hague Conventions, and meant that the huge majority of people in Japanese cities were actually not civilians at all.

But, in the final analysis, it was not civilian morale that was the key, but the morale of the government, and specifically the morale of the senior Army officers who controlled the government. This very small body of men was the actual target of the atomic bombs, not physically, but psychologically.

Ironically, Japan had been the first country in history to use aerial bombardment in an attempt to terrorize a civilian population; As Air Marshall Harris has famously said; " They have sown the wind, now they shall reap the whirlwind."

 

The first strategic bombing campaign in history against civilian targets started in 1915, when the German air force started its bombing campaign against Britain, starting with Zeppelins and then Gotha bombers

 

Interesting post, the bombing for peace concept is very special so in their heavier bomb totals I'd dare to suggest how the allies had a greater desire for peace...

 

Some of you seem to take me for a fool, please dont.

Urqh: About the rockets, I look at the war as total war only truely starting in early 1942. When Germany sought to end the titanic war with the Reds she was unable to defend her occupied territories from air assualts. So the V-1/2 was a simple way of saying "We are here, fear us"(and yes I totally believe it was a horrible terror weapon). Post Barbarossa Germany was different from early war Germany. OKW made the mistake of not making an endgame with Britain and things degenerated from there (Hate, Brutality etc)

This thread degenerated very far from the original topic so I do request a close.

 

I dont take you for a fool, not at all, your statement on peaceful intent speaks for itself. If you wish to close the thead then request so by all means. But first you need to address your statement on bombing vis a vis peaceful intent. Its that damn important. Not personal.

Your statement speaks for itself. Its a foolish statement.

 

I suspect that the families of the 40,000 British civilians killed by air attack by the end of 1941 would disagree with you on that.

 

every one knows that american bombers were pretty crap at aiming bombs

 

Ok Urqh, I didnt mean to come across as saying that the Luftwaffe was innocent and bombing to achieve a noble peace against the Allies. I just meant that Germany was desperate to achieve terms with Britain so that they could turn their attention in another direction. If I offended you or any other Brits I apologize.

If I offended any Americans by making it seem like I was saying "Innocent Germans being murdered by evil Americans" im sorry about that to. People seemed to take my topic sentence in a whole other direction.

In simple terms: If you had to torture somebody to get information(your first time), might you kill them not knowing that you are to strong? I chose the US because they could hit very hard and they did hit the hardest.

Bigfun: Why would I have said that?


I stand by my request to close this.

 

A couple of interesting quotes ,

"We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of 9-10 March[1945} then went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined"
-Curtis LeMay

"Fundamentally,the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged firebombingby the B29s."
-Prince Konoye,Advisor to the Emperor Hirohito