Allied Terror bombing of Germany

"... I know it sounds heartless and cruel, but war is." - words of British crewman.

The British didn't want that war.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Germany started the attacks on cities in WWI:the Zeppelins attacked London,the Hochseeflotte Scarborough,thus,later,they should not complain about terror attacks .

 

The quote or the fact that Britain wanted nothing to do with hostilities?

 

They were administered their own medicine, just in much larger quantities -- to get the real taste of it.

 

Mainly the fact. Am not saying, that the Germans didn't do terror bombings but that the British (and the soviets) did too - tenfold.

 

Today I’ve watched a BBC documentary from the series Battlefield entitled “Bomber”. The documentary is very informative and balanced. It is absolutely worthy watching.

Here is a short passage from the conclusion. Please, read carefully and think:

… but what did it (bombing) achieve?

There's no easy answer, it didn't close down German industry,
whose production peaked in 1944, but the bombing did prevent it
from rising to even greater heights and forced the diversion
of massive military resources to the defence of the Reich,
The air offensive also lifted British morale at a time when there was no other
way of taking the war to Germany. It helped pave the way for the Allied invasion of Europe.
Yet the cost was enormous, in both materials and men, 55,000 aircrew died, almost half of those that flew, In weighing success and failure, we sometimes forget that the young men who risked and so often lost their lives did it for us.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yozZQ20blPk[/media]

 

In a conflict founded upon the concept of Total War, the distinction between 'soldier' and 'civilian', would inevitably become blurred.

 

Have you ever considered criticising harshness of the siege of Leningrad too?

 

Civilians have no claim on immunity in a total war,especially the civilians of the country that started the war .

 

It was Stalin's choice not to evacuate the civilians from Leningrad. It could have been done.

That's why I would not talk about "collateral casualties" nor "targeting of military targets" when discussing about the bombings of German cities.

 

It was Hitler's choice not to evacuate the civilians from the German cities. It could have been done.

 

Excellent stuff, indeed ! Some great footage of the Mosquito Museum's B.35 followed by an interview with our old friend, Herr Peter Spoden......

 

So the British did the same as the Nazies, you mean...?

 

Good riddance, Karjala -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

German cities were military targets where were living civilians .Civilians were not targetted,because one can not target civilians by dropping boms from aircrafts,in several cases,both parties attacked the wrong cities,thus,targetting of civilians ........

 

Did the Axis start the war ? Yes.
Did the Axis target cities ? Yes.
Did the Axis employ Douhets doctrine ? No. (maybe they would try, but did not have the means)
Did the RAF employ Douhets doctrine ? Yes.
Did the USAAF employ Douhets doctrine ? Yes, in the case of Japan, and late war attacks on German cities. Earlier they targeted industry & railways etc.


There you have it - case can be closed. Cause the question was did Allies do so called "terror bombing". Of course they did. That the Axis started with it, does not change this fact.

I don´t even know, why there is much discussion about that, cause it seems quite clear (too me at least, and Karjala is right, in the question of OP, it is indeed irrelevant who startet it or was worse).

 

By trying, that means that the Axis did employ Douhet's doctrine.

If you answer "No." for the reason that they did not have the means. Then you also have to answer "No." for the Allies employing Douhet's doctrine, because they did not have the means. After all, the German population did not rise up and overthrow the Nazi government, nor did Germany surrender until almost all of their territory was occupied by Allied Forces.

Did both side employ Douhet's doctrine, yes.

Did either side successfully employ Douhet's doctrine, no.

Yes, in the case of Japan, is argumentative. The cold, hard logic of the matter is that firebombing was far more effective at destroying industry and infrastructure than high altitude bombing had been. By firebombing, they could destroy 10 or 20 industrial targets all in one go, rather than flying 10 or 20 high altitude missions(given the problems of high altitude bombing over Japan, this number would likely be far higher). Compounding that, is that Japan had practiced "cottage industries", early in the war, but these had proved a failure and by mid-1944, the practice had essentially ceased. However, the Americans were unaware of this(at least until after the war), thus destroying Japan's cottage industries became one of the arguments for employing firebombing.

 

It cannot and will not ever be the same thing. The crimes the Germans committed during this dark period in history are unforgivable. And before you counter with it being "irrelevant" the fact of the matter is, Germany continued to fight a war that was over as soon the Allies secured the beachhead and broke out across France. Since 1942 the Allies were well aware of the Final Solution. The extent of such was reported continually by underground resistance groups and other reputable sources. The Allies and the US State Dept new the only way to save the victims was "to win the war as quickly as possible". This fact is never mentioned in this argument and, IMO, is crucial to understanding the need to bring the war to a conclusion.

It was not terror bombing and innocent civilians were not intentionally targeted. However, as long as genocide and useless fighting continued the Allies were going to continue bombing key sites that fueled and benefited the Wehrmacht.

 

Neonazis, just like these who published the article from the opening post always want to open some questions while remaining deliberately silent about the essential:

1. Was the Nazi Germany a murderous regime?
2. Was the Nazi regime a genocidal regime?
3. Was it necessary to stop the Nazi rabble?
......
......

Britain was our the last hope and for some time Britain alone waged the war for all of us to eliminate the murderous Nazi regime, to stop the Nazi genocide and to stop the Nazi rabble. Now, the Neonazi cowards use the anonymity of internet to spread insults against the British soldiers who risked their lives and have died for all of us.