The Allied Bomber Offensive

That bombing of Paris was part of "Operation Paula", planned as a strategic bombing attack on Paris.
There were three objectives:

1.Reduce war production.
Indeed several factories were hit, mainly the Citroen factory on the Quai de Javel.

2. Cause Panic among the civilian population

3. Force the french aifdorce into a fight over Paris and so give the Luftwaffe the chance to weaken them.

Btw, I think the very first bombing raid on a city was on january 29th 1916, when a german Zeppelin launched 17 bombs on Paris, killing 26 persons in the quarters of Belleville and Ménilmontant.

 

One is learning interesting stuff here, thanks Castelot.
but, but...How many civilians actually died, after the warning leaflets had been distributed? I can´t somehow understand, why do you think the reason was to create panic, after they had warned the population themselves. I am still sticking to my strange idea that it was the British who started bombing civilians (in May ´40). I have simply read it in a trustworthy book, which I can´t locate now.

I am warning you, Gents, I will make a comeback in force tomorrow.
I have been working hard for 15 hours nonstop today and am not having fun with the Forum just now. Goodnight.

 

The British were certainly not the first to bomb civilians, there were German raids on London in the First World War both from Zepplins and later Gotha bombers. One of the reasons for the formation of the RAF from the RFC and RNAS was to give Britain a stategic bombing force to hit back at Berlin, the war however ended before aircraft with a long enough range were ready.
While not ariel bombardment the German navy also bombarded several British east coast towns of no industrial or military value in the early years of WWI - attacks aimed at denting the prestige of the Royal Navy by hitting civillian targets. Not aeriel bombing but the same principle.

 

There were less than 300 civilians killed during Operation Paula.
The germans dropped leaflets as they tought the mere fear of the coming bombing raid would create panic in the population.

I remember having seen a german propaganda poster showing a destroyed town and saying "Remember it was Britain who launched the first bombs on civilians in May 1940".
But then again, such posters tend to be "biased" and I do not know which raid it referred to.

 

It was certainly not a poster, I was referring to! It was a book, a British book, I think. Might be Irving´s book on Dresden massacre. Does anybody have it home, maybe?

Castelot, thank you again for the kind answers. I would though certainly not write "biased" but BIASED LIKE HELL! Which doesn´t mean that these particular posters had some real basis.

You can be sure, that I am not less revolted by German bombardments than the most fervent opposers of nazi policies here. I just think, that in this particular case they might have actually been less civilian-oriented to start with, than the British. That´s all. Their genocidal feats elsewhere can, in my mind not lessen the Allied responsibility for such deeds as Dresden or Hamburg. And I would not use WW1 bombings as an excuse, either.
My point is, that one should stay virtuous, whatever the other side is doing. I don´t endorse the idea that a whole nation should be blamed and punished for its governments criminal behavior.
Neither am I blaming British civilians for the policy of bombing German civilians, of course.
One can say that civilians are a legitimate target in a way, because the produce weapons.
What I´m trying to say is that the lines should be clear. Combattants are legitimate targets and non-combattants - not.
But real life is such a mess… How should the Germans behave toward civilians in USSR where AFACRemember, 600 000 soldiers and innumerable transpots and other facilities were killed or blown up by "civilian" partisants hiding among the populations behind the lines?

 

I would not condemm the allied bombing campaign as a whole, but I agree that there were certain raids, the two most obvious ones are maybe Hamburg in July 1943 and Dresden in February 1945 which were only about killing as many civilians as possible.
I do not think that that is a legitimate goal.

Dresden is particulary difficult to understand as at that time, it was clear that the end of the war was only a matter of weeks.
Tough there were some industries in the suburbs of Dresden, these were not even targeted but the residential areas of the center of the city.
It may be debatable, but to me, Dresden could well qualify as a war crime.

 

I'm sure we've discussed Dresden before...

The main official target was the rail network & sidings etc.
The huge civilian loss was mostly due to the Germans using the city as a centre to house refugees from the surrounding area. Obviously, there was no shelter provision for these extra people.
Whether the British/Americans knew that I do not know.

Was it right?
Well, it was at best wasted effort, at worst a war crime - depending on the motives & knowledge of the people planning the raid.

 

Don´t you think they´d made recon flights and seen columns of refugees from the East? AFAIK it was primarily huge numbers of people from behind Oder-Neisse who were there.
Besides, why should they risk lives of their crews as well as risk killing many civilians at that moment – for the Soviets, primarily. In February it was kind of over, anyways.
Besides, why did they used incendiaries, if it was railways, they were targetting, and why did Americans in daytime ride were so "inaccurate"?

 

[I have split the discussion on Partisans/terrorists to the WWII section]

Dunno, but I'll try to answer to keep the debate going...

1) Did they routinely undertake recon flights immediately prior to bombing raids?

2) Yes, the Dresden raids were apparently undertaken at Soviet insistance. It makes sense to do a few favours for your ally-who-might-become-your-enemy, plus is it not worth killing a few more 'enemy' people to shorten the war (by however much) and thereby save 'friendly' lives?

3) Incendiaries we standard load. Why? Well, you could argue that they were there to destroy rolling stock & railway buildings, but I reckon that they basic plan was to ensure the railway yards were taken out by levelling the city. Remember, bombing was not amazingly precise...

4) American 'precision bombing' was a tad over-rated. As discussed before, any mildly adverse conditions (cloud, humidity, etc) could throw out the Norden. And as only the Lead Bombardier aims, one mistake maens an entire formation's mistake...

 

Don't know either.

That depends oh what favours you do to your allies.
Wether the Dresden bombing shortened the war is at least very debatable.

Incendiary bombs were launched on the center of the city were no railway passed trough.
If it was to destroy the railway communications it was a failure because apparently they were repaired 16 hours after the raid.
On other occasions the allies had sucessfully bombed factories or railways without destroying the entire city around.

 

Well, the Soviets apparently thought that the rail centre there would aid the German defence in the sector... Who can say.
Especially as the railway yards were outside the area of main destruction - I have a little map somewhere that shows the areas of the city that were damaged & to what extent. The railway yards were comparatively lightly touched. As Castelot said, they were back in action very shortly after the raids.

Was the intention to target the city centre? Or did the initial pathfinder drop go wrong?

I'm asking lots of questions that I do not know the answers to!


Yes, there are examples of factories being bombed without the cities being harmed... there are also examples the opposite. Heck, there are even examples of the wrong city - even the wrong country - being bombed. As I said, accuracy was not always reliable in WW2, especially by night.

 

I was not using WWI bombings as an excuse as I do not regard the allied bombing campain as needing an excuse - it had to be done. I was simply refuting the argument that the British were the first to bomb civillians

Staying virtuous is a lovely principle, but seldom one that wins wars. To have had German troops marching up Whitehall because the British govenment were to squeemish to bomb the enemy is not something anyone would choose

If you are not prepared to accept that civillians will die in war then you cannot go to war, full stop, and given the technology of the time bombing meant civillian casualties, there is no avoiding that. To have no embarked on a bombing campaign would have been fighting with one hand tied behind your back. It would also have ment ignoring the understandable desire for vengence felt in Britain after the Blitz - no Prime Minister could have appeared to value the lives of the enemy ahead of his own people

 

Of course bombing raids meant(and still mean) civilian casualties.
But there is I think a big difference in taking civilian casualties into account(which is impossible to avoid in a war) and deliberately targeting them.

 

Dresden

I dont know why incendiaries made up such a high proportion of the bombload but it could be because Dresden hadn't been attacked much in the past and still had plenty that was burnable unlike many other German cities by this time.

Just because it hadn’t been attacked until then doesn’t mean it had immunity despite what its inhabitants and those organising the Third Reich Defences thought. The factories in the city and its suburbs included the Zeis-Ikon optical factory and the Siemens glass factory manufacturing radar and electronic components and fuses for the German forces. Other factories in the suburbs included ones making gas masks, engines for Junkers aircraft and cockpit parts for Messerschmitt fighters – the various factories employed around 10,000 people.

This idea of immunity meant that most anti aircraft guns had been sent elsewhere and there were only a few light guns in the area.

Something to think about, Dresden was attacked in February but the Germany continued fighting until May.

 

Castelot, BULL´S EYE. The legendary French, lethally sharp logic has spoken! Hello, I am not that alone, after all.

There are some challenges to be nuked up here:
“I was not using WWI bombings as an excuse as I do not regard the allied bombing campain as needing an excuse - it had to be done”.
Disagree. It cannot be excused. Not only the western leaders sacrified their ethics. They did it with minuscule effect, as a result. Only towards the end of the war the production dropped due to bombs. The main result was blockade. Read Speer.

“Staying virtuous is a lovely principle, but seldom one that wins wars.” Please, name one or two best examples of criminal conduct that decided the fate of war.

“the understandable desire for vengence felt in Britain after the Blitz”. Sure. Don´t tell the people, what you are doing yourself, but only what you want them to know and feel. Then you´ll get a green light to do anything.

“there are even examples of the wrong city - even the wrong country - being bombed. As I said, accuracy was not always reliable in WW2, especially by night”
Somehow, every wave hit the city mainly. Day and night. In a situation with total control of the air. No matter – special recon for every raid or not. Their planes were everywhere those days. They couldn´t miss the refugee columns of many kilometers (and everybody knew the refugees have been fleeing by the millions). They knew exactly, how the city looked like. How many pathfinders can miss one after another, the same way?
Btw, why should incendiaries be particularly good against rails or rolling stock?

“It makes sense to do a few favours for your ally-who-might-become-your-enemy, plus is it not worth killing a few more 'enemy' people to shorten the war (by however much) and thereby save 'friendly' lives?”
By then, the Soviets were not that friendly anymore. Ask US specialists who asked to see German experimental subs yards in Gdynia. Nix.
And if L/L was not a huge favor to Soviets, so I don´t know what it was. Besides, everybody knew that nothing would stop RKKA. Bombing a defenceless city with incendiaries – maybe Stalin liked the show. But did they absolutely have to make the murderer glad killing hundreds of thousands of innocent, unhappy people?

“Something to think about, Dresden was attacked in February but the Germany continued fighting until May.” I am afraid, not many products from February 1945 were actually used. And the fighting between Feb-May you can hardly call a war. It was mostly cleaning up and finding places for POWs. Then you´ll say: BATTLE OF BERLIN! And I´ll answer: not war – rather butchery and deconstruction. Of course, I´m exagerrating here. But still….The (second) greatest BBQ in the history of human race was not necessary. Not even useful. It was crime, if we reject the strange theories that wave after wave missed target and the incendiaries have been loaded by drunken workers (or some excentric general didn´t know that incendiaries are only second best, as concerns destroying railways).

I can continue, but, I´m afraid it´s pointless. Isn´t it?

 

The same Speer who said in his diary that Germany could fight Russia or the Allied bombing but not both?

Depends on your opinion of what constitutes criminal, you cleary regard the Allied bombing as criminal, I (for one) do not

I don't understand - are you saying a population demanding retribution for having just had the crap bombed out of them should have been ignored? You seem to argue that German bombing of Britain was ok because the RAF had bombed them first (not true but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument), but British retaliatory bombing is a crime?

Dresden was a legitimate target for reasons of millitary production, German transport infrastructure and the need to cooperate with your ally. The fact that it was choc full of refugees when it was bombed makes it a tragedy NOT a crime

[/quote]

 

The same Speer. Read THE WHOLE book. Please.

The bombing was criminal as killing civilians by the Germans in Russia and Poland (f.ex.) was. For which a good many were hanged. They had a perfect explanation too: Banditen.

“….” Both German and British bombings of civilians were criminal. Do you really think that the best form of fighting crime is - crime? I´d suggest contacting the local police and give them this precious piece of advice.
But seriously. AFAIK it was actually the British, who began bombing civilian targets as a consequence of a policy decision. The Germans followed, albeit reluctantly, because their strategy was to knock out RAF and they didn´t care much about the environs of Picadilly. But the bloody public opinion and the Psycho-fuhrer didn´t let them do the good job.
Actually, it doesn´t matter, who began. British policy was to bomb civilian Germans, period. This policy constitutes a crime in the light of appropriate conventions, signed by His Majesty´s Government. Or what?

About Dresden: see above, please.

 

I thinki we are going to have to agree to disagree on Dresden Izaak or this thread will just get dominated by Dresden and go round in circles....or get locked...(maybe the moderators can seperate it it into a Dresden only thread).

We all have our own views on how the resources historically allocated to the bombing offensive could/should have been used...I'll repeat my own views (with the benefit of hindsight obviously).

How the aircraft were being used is the big problem – the RAF and USAAF were loosing dozens of aircraft on every raid and until around 1944 getting few results. From 1940 to 1942 RAF night bombing accuracy was so bad that some ‘targets’ were unaware they had been a target until British radio announced there had been a raid.

If those aircraft had been used covering convoys in the Atlantic then the Battle of the Atlantic on which EVEYTHING depended would not have been such a close run thing (by 1942 tanker losses were running at a rate high enough to ground the bomber fleets within about 6 months) but that was against the RAF philosophy.

It was only from the beginning 1944 on that the bomber forces got the equipment they needed to do the damage they needed – in the RAF’s case it was effective night navigation and target marking equipment and in the USAAF case a few months later the Mustang long-range fighter able to escort bombers all the way there and back and outfight anything the Luftwaffe could put in the air.

Compounding the lack of accuracy early on was the choice of targets – if once they had the forces at their disposal the RAF and USAAF had concentrating on oil and transport targets then its probable that WW2 would have ended a lot sooner with all the resulting savings in life. Let the Germans make all the weapons they wanted – if they cant move them due to lack of fuel or a working railway/road network then its just been a total waste of time and resources. When the USAAF made an all out attack on the German oil industry, production was reduced by September 1944 to 10,000/tons a month when the minimum requirement was 160,000 tons/month. By July 1944 new aircraft and tanks produced by Albert Speer’s efforts were useless due of lack of fuel and showed what could have been done if the Allies hadn’t kept switching to new targets after a few weeks.

 

Dear PMN1,
I have been waiting for you. Really. Your text is compact, yet – there´s plenty of truth in it. You don´t address the moral side of the story. I can live with(out) it. The way you show the process in the context of the whole effort is what I like very much.

The futile, potentially suicidal policy. The best example (for Charley, f. ex., no offence intended) that criminality doesn´t pay. Not even in wars.
It was targeting refineries, that delivered the K.O. That´s what Speer was writing about. All the rest was, relatively, peanuts.

I do agree that further repeating the more or less identical blows leads all of us nowhere.
I am going to stand by my “moral imperative” like a famous Koenigsberger. Let´s cut it here and meet some other good place.

 

And I never got the chance to reply...
Sadly, the 'Dresden' discussion is too mixed with 'bomber campaign' discussion to split effectively. We do have a Dresden topic somewhere...

Just to clarify (because I cannot help myself):

Dresden was not the 2nd greatest BBQ - Hiroshima & Nakaski probably qualify as greater, and the Tokyo firestorm raids were greater than those. Plus the Hamburg firestorms...
However, nothing can diminish the fact that it was bloody awful, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering with this...

Incendiaries again - rolling stock & railway sleepers are made primarily of wood. Which burns.
But, as I said, they probably just took the view that if they flattened the city they would get everything (railways & factories) along with it.

Wars ended or speeded by 'criminal' activity?
Vlad the Impaler stopped an invasion of his country by a vastly superior force by impaling several thousand captured enemy soldiers. The invading army saw that & went home.
Harold Godwinson (later King Harold II) ravaged Wales so badly that they executed their own king & gave Harold his head to get the chance to make peace with England.
Harold himself was rushed into battle when all his forces were not assembled by Count William the Bastard, as William was ravaging Harold's lands in South East England.
Charlemange & Saxony...
I could continue.

Back to bombing in general - yes, British policy was of bombing, but in practice they used nothing more lethal than propaganda leaflets (which make good toilet paper) until it wasfelt neccessary to retaliate. The first deliberate bombing of a civilian, urban target (again, discounting Warsaw & Rotterdam because of the legalistic definition of 'fortress' they were given by the Germans...) that we have seen on here was the bombing of Paris by the Luftwaffe.
Find me an actual example otherwise!