Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Allied bombing of civilian targets in WWII

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Allied bombing of civilian targets in WWII
    Posted: 07-May-2008 at 15:58
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

To be honest with you, there is a difference between the British thumping their collected noses to 'Herrn Fuhrer' versus obedient , intimidated and threatened Germans . The German populace was  100% controlled , meaning  they were not even allowed to mull  over their fate .  
There is no difference.  Tyrants cannot force resiliance in a civilian population facing overwhelming hardship. Resiliance needs to be voluntary and come from with in the population. In WWII, the Germans displayed the same courage as the British when subjected to mass bombing.
 
It is a huge propaganda error to assume that civilians on the other side display heroism only because they are forced to. Or that their soldiers fight only because they are brainwashed, drugged, coerced etc. .  The actual truth is far different.    
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

Wherein lies the crux of the then justification : "Whether the armament civilian worker is killed/maimed on the shop floor or on the kitchen floor , it does not matter".
Except that in the kitchen, the worker is far more likely to be surrounded by women and children. Deliberatly targetting the kitchen is wrong. Once again, WWII showed that justifying such raids was easy ("Kitchen argument"), but being subjected to them was far more difficult.   


Edited by Cryptic - 07-May-2008 at 21:17
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2008 at 16:51
Morally justifiable? I think it's a very difficult question on one hand. On the other hand killing innocent people, babies, kids, wifes, old people can never be justifiable. From the point of Military the bombing was successful, it destroyed the resistance of the German population. But if we're honest, German troops fought untill the end. And there were mass of civilians who fought in the last days as Volkssturm to protect their homes. And as a result of Russian cruelties in the East the resistance there was even higher than in the West. So the bombing was successful, but there were much better targets than the civilians. Dresden was an economic and strategic knotpoint. But if we look on maps that show the bombing zones, there were no or less strategic or economic even militarian targits hit. It was the whole center of Dresden destroyed, churches, houses, theaters and so on. It was a pure terror attack. About the casualties there are different opinions. I think the 25 to 30.ooo casulties are a quite low amount. There are others who reach up to over 100.000. Nobody really knows because there were mass of soldiers and refugees in the city.
 
So it is difficult to say, did the terror bombing save the lifes of allied soldiers. It is the same with Japan, the Japanese were in contact with the Allies to surrender. The drop of the nuclear bombs wasn't necessary.
 
I believe that democratic nations, those of the so-called free world must have higher standards for themselves. You can't expect good from evil, there's nothing good in dictatorships. But our society has to look for the things we do, otherwise we become traitors to our own ideals. That was so during WWII, during all the wars after it and this is important today. If Harris was right to kill civilians, why these muslim terrorist have less right to do so? Democracies have to be tough, but they shouldn't destroy their ideals.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 07:53

Originally posted by Cryptic

There is no difference. 

Certainly not in the suffering of people who are being considered as 'co-lateral'  damage - or the costs of doing 'business'.

Originally posted by Cryptic

Tyrants cannot force resiliance in a civilian population facing overwhelming hardship. 

Yes they did indeed. The Governor of Saxony for instance absolutely prohibited city  residents from leaving their points of registered residences.

During the last year of war , any behavior or utterances by citizens that could be somehow interpreted as 'defeatism' bore grave consequences to  'traitors' .

 

Originally posted by Cryptic

Resiliance needs to be voluntary and come from with in the population.
I would not call it resiliency but our first and primary instinct : the will to survive.  Germans knew after the demise of Stalingrad that it was the end of the beginning and the begin of the end .

Originally posted by Cryptic

In WWII, the Germans displayed the same courage as the British when subjected to mass bombing.

Absolutely so!

Originally posted by Cryptic

It is a huge propaganda error to assume that civilians on the other side display heroism only because they are forced to.

I'm not familiar with any literature in this regard.

Originally posted by Cryptic

  Or that their soldiers fight only because they are brainwashed, drugged, coerced etc. .  The actual truth is far different.  

Well, the kerfuffle following the 'outing' of the German author Gunter Grass as having been a member of the 'Waffen  SS' emphasized the fact , that he ,who was called to arms ,better did so ,and did well , or else. 

 

Casting our mind back to 1937/8/9 we cannot but notice that the German mind  had come under some sort of collective spell  of a megalomaniacal demagogue. This included of course the men under arms who believed to right wrongs , to fight for  higher goals etc etc.

 

This stands in contrast to , let's say , the Pole being trained and flying for the RAF or the GI's who were motivated by different reasonings.

Originally posted by Cryptic

 Except that in the kitchen, the worker is far more likely to be surrounded by women and children. Deliberately targeting the kitchen is wrong. Once again, WWII showed that justifying such raids was easy ("Kitchen argument"), but being subjected to them was far more difficult.   

 

Well, there is no arguing about the direction  of your point of view from today's  moral compass. Which I personally - does it really need to be mentioned - wholeheartedly share.

Nevertheless , we have to recognise the fact
1) it does not behoove us to judge over our forbearer's decion making processes.
2) WWII slid on both sides into total war -pronounced so on the German side.
 
Furthermore , quasi all of mankinds existing thermonuclear devices > ~ 50kt , are targeted or to be targeted against ..... civilians.Confused
 
The reality  of mutually assured annihilation has given us over 60 years of peace -not state craft. Let's  hope it stays that way.Big%20smile
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 11:46

Originally posted by beorna

Morally justifiable? I think it's a very difficult question on one hand. On the other hand killing innocent people, babies, kids, wifes, old people can never be justifiable.

All true , that’s why there was a Hague convention .

Also,  there had been movements afoot to agree on the outlawing of aerial bombardments – these efforts came to nought , because no country in it’s right mind would give up such superior strategic fighting tool.

 

Originally posted by beorna

From the point of Military the bombing was successful, it destroyed the resistance of the German population.

How did German civilian population ‘resistance’  manifest itself , and in what way did it change?

 

Originally posted by beorna

But if we're honest, German troops fought untill the end.

If we’re honest, we recognize the fact , that they surrendered by the hundreds of thousands. More so , than the Allied forces had or could have had anticipated ; that’s why the Allies had to cope for month with that bottleneck of feeding and housing gazillion German POW’s and DP’s. (see Rheinwiesenlagers)

 When Hitler deep down in his Berlin bunker screamed :  “Where is Steiner?”  he was not aware , that his  Wonder-SS-General  rather saved his men by retreating than having them  senselessly   butchered to bits and pieces.

 

 

Originally posted by beorna

And there were mass of civilians who fought in the last days as Volkssturm to protect their homes.

It is certainly true, that old men were hauled out of retirement and very young boys from their mother's arms .

They were quickly trained in the handling of anti aircraft cannons.
Even 12 + 13 year old boys , organised as,  believe it or not , so called Werewolves  groups ,  were thrown against the Russian and Allied onslaught. They of course were among the first who were released from subsequent detention.

 

Originally posted by beorna

And as a result of Russian cruelties in the East the resistance there was even higher than in the West. So the bombing was successful, but there were much better targets than the civilians. Dresden was an economic and strategic knotpoint. But if we look on maps that show the bombing zones, there were no or less strategic or economic even militarian targits hit. It was the whole center of Dresden destroyed, churches, houses, theaters and so on.
 

 

Yes , basically all true, unfortunately.

 

Dresden , as any other center , was nevertheless quite  involved in war production , not that it mattered to Harris.  

 I find it always a bit ironic , why the perpetrators  of insane actions seemingly get less blame for the results of their deeds than the forces that have to fend the crazies off with what they have.
 After all, the defenders  fought for the preservation of their life and lifestyle.

 This simple fact rubs  me ,  that it was not within character structure of Germans , to sue for an end of hostilities when the end was clearly in sight  - nobody , but Germans who had the power , or could/should  have had the power to do that , are to blame for that.   

Originally posted by beorna

Nobody really knows because there were mass of soldiers and refugees in the city.

Quite true , however only to a certain extend .

 

Fact is, Dresdners  did not in any way accomodate refugees or billet soldiers (especially not in the city core).

 

Both groups were in rail transit , refugees and injured soldiers heading  west  , soldiers  east. The main Dresden railway station in the centre of the city was merely a  welcome  stop over , volunteers fed  weary travellers with hot soup ,tea and coffee , attended to injuries , gave medicin  , and off they went  again , watched by  the police . (That's where many  of the corpses were collected)

Dresden was simply not equipped to bed & feed gazillion broke and half starving have-nots.

There are no records of transit or refugee camps , no orders to put up people in homes.

However there were many refugees who indeed came with push or pull carts , farmers with horses and wagons  and whatever belongings had been left over from robbers + thieves etc. (Polish people were especially brutal in this regard)

Those  on foot/horse refugees  were temporarily housed  mainly  in school halls or camped outside  along the River were there was food for the horses. ( only two schools suffered severe bomb damage)

 

Originally posted by beorna

  It was a pure terror attack.

At that point in time , in what was regarded as  a perfectly normal , military operation , within the framework of agreed upon , allied 24/7 bombing Germany to smithereens until she comes to her senses . 

  

I would call the unprovoked Luftwaffe attacks on Belgrade (30k dead) , Warsaw ,Rotterdam etc  pure terror attacks.

 

Originally posted by beorna

About the casualties there are different opinions.  I think the 25 to 30.ooo casulties are a quite low amount. There are others who reach up to over 100.000. 

The old  numbers game again . Unhappy

Goebbels , two days ( !!!)  later had already  forwarded to  foreign press offices in Switzerland the Nazi fiction of hundreds of thousands of casualty figures . Hence   numerous reports in the foreign press about the Dresden air-gangster  ‘terror’ raid on the ‘Venice on the Elbe’  – even though , not a single foreign  reporter had been present in Dresden.

There it rested for decades , until  David Irving touted to the world an  uncertified , falsified , hand-typed copy of an uncertified , falsified , hand-typed copy of a Final President of Berlin Police Report the  Phantom of the Dresden-Dead-Opera was born.  And waxed upon .  Figures climbed as high as 250.000 even 300.000. Neonazis feasted on those numbers  .

 

Fact though is, that Irving had been warned on several occasions by Germans in the know , that his paper was a falsification  –Irving , on automatic , slow self-destruct , would not heed to reason.

 

Up popped the genuine article : the real Final Berlin Police Report , composed a  month after the horrible event ,(not like Goebbel’s  two days later) ,  it  stated the official casualty figure of 20.140 ( give or take some hundreds , I’m too lazy to dig it up) .

 

In fact , what had happened , was, that the first person who had hand-typed the first uncertified ‘copy’ , merely added a Zero to the official estimate figure , thus 20.140 became 201.400 .   David Irving , after the discovery of the genuine article, half recanted and arbitrarily ‘adjusted’  his  figures up and down depending on who was listening .

A darn charade , wich thankfully had been  ever so ably dealt with by Justice Grey during the Irving trial in London.

 

Originally posted by beorna

So it is difficult to say, did the terror bombing save the lifes of allied soldiers. It is the same with Japan, the Japanese were in contact with the Allies to surrender.

The Japanese were not at war with  the Allies , only with the U.S.A. , also,  until the Emperor so decreed, there was never talk of surrender , only a halt of hostilities with honor.

 

There were no direct channels of authorized communications  between Japan and the U.S.A. ,  hence Japan used Russia as intermediary. Russia did not forward all of Japans proposals , only some , others not at all.  Russia was not in the least interested in a militarily strong remaining Japan :

 

During the war , the Anglos formaly declared ,  that they would not claim one bit of conquered territory in Germany.

Of course the same held true for the U.S. vs. Japan.

  Hence Russia salivated at the prospect of devouring a prostrate , helpless Japan , that’s why she  , after the fall of Germany ,  started to relocate troops from the west to the east.  The negotiations were protracted because of the U.S.’s insistance of unconditional surrender , meaning the dethroning of the God-King. Eventually the U.S. relented , the Emperor retained his position and Japan laid down her weapons.

 

 

 

Originally posted by beorna

The drop of the nuclear bombs wasn't necessary.

 

Here we go again.

 

From the Allied perspective at that time ,  it was as compulsory as it can get.

Two main reasons:

1) Churchill and Truman both agreed , that victory over Japan had to be swift , otherwise Russia would enter the fray at a convenient moment  , give Japan the coup de grace and lay claim over all of Japan , not just a few disputed Islands.

2) Projected  American casualties just to reach and conquer Tokio were in the order of 1 Million , not counting the North Islands and a native losses which would have been a multiple of American losses.

It was simply time to pull the plug.

 

There are dozens of mail bags in  museums with thank-you letters from Japanese people , saying they most certainly would not be alive today had it not been for the the U.S. to  finished  the war : the alternative would have been suicidal   fighting with sharpended bamboo sticks,  kitchen knives , internal killings and  starvation .

 

 

 

Originally posted by beorna

I believe that democratic nations, those of the so-called free world must have higher standards for themselves.

Asymmetrical wars are not winnable for the good guys who presumably have their hands tied.

 

Originally posted by beorna

You can't expect good from evil, there's nothing good in dictatorships.

Oh so true.Clap

Originally posted by beorna

If Harris was right to kill civilians, why these muslim terrorist have less right to do so?

 

This is an outrageous statement  Angry  – the British fought a defensive war , to save their neck and soul – as did the Americans and the Russians .

 

Muslims  per se are not threatend one tiny bit , much less do they  even 'fight'  , (they even left the fighting during the WWI to the British)  Muslims  merely  kill + butcher in the most abominable manner  not imaginable , whomever and however it pleases them. Dead

 

Originally posted by beorna

          therein lays the difference between a  Democracies have to be tough, but they shouldn't destroy their ideals.
 

Well the United States certainly did not abandon their high ideals towards Germans , they helped them generously in every which way imaginable  - for what - only to be scorned ,  ridiculed and at every opportune and  inopportune moment to be viciously attacked by them.   

 

They will not do it again.Cool

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 12:57
The Germans didn't trust the Nazis less when the bombing increased more and more. They lost their hopes to win the war, but it didn't made them stop fighting.
 
You're right that a lot of German troops surrendered. There were a lot of commanders that saw that it was helpful to go on fighting and that Germany couldn't win the war. But till the end Germans was fighting and especially in the east.
 
You asked why the Germans didn't stop the hostilities, the war. There are different reasons. And probably different Germans have different reasons. Fear of punishment was one reason. I don't mean punished by Nazis, that was a reason too. I mean those of the Allies and the Russians. They treatened the Germans well after WWI, what could come now. And I believe a lot of soldiers told their families what was going on in the east. As it happened later Germans were right to fear the Russian and Polish revange. But on the other hand I can ask as well, why didn't the Britans stop fighting they were chanceless? well, as long as you're fighting there is allways a chance to win, isn't it?
 
In 1945 Germany wasn't as organised as usual. You wrote it. Troops were hastely send to the east, because the fear of Russian was a hundred times greater than those of the allies. Refugees fleed to the West. They weren't counted. You said: Not those counts (100.00) again. I didn't speak about 250 or 300.00. I do believe that Nazi propaganda gave those counts. But these 20.000 are usually Dresdeners. What's with all the others? How many were in Dresden, how many survived. It was not my intention to give a great amount of bodies. Even 20.000 killed civilians are too much, or? Of course bombing cities is allways terror, especially if the targets are just civilians. If you want to hear from me tht the bombing of Belgrad, Warsaw, Rotterdam and other cities was terror bombing too, yes I believe so. But as I said, the Nazis were criminals. I expect good guys to behave better than bad guys. Otherwise where is the difference.
 
As far as I know the Japanese side tried to capitulate under conditions. It was the US side that wanted unconditional surrender. By the way that is another reason why Germans fought until the end.
 
You can't win an assymetrial war if you hold your hands tied? As we see today, you can't win an assymetrial war with soldiers. Perhaps killing, bombing, torturing isn't the answer to assymetrial wars. But I think WWII wasn't assymetrial. The use of phosphor bombs and others (I am sorry I don't now all these english terms) should make the population afraid. It should break their strenght. From military side it is ok. I think everybody wants to win a war, but then we should put all these moral in a waste basket. That is why I mentioned Muslim terrorists. Of course I didn't want to compare British soldiers with them. But everybody fights because he believes he is right. So muslim terorists too. We don't think so, but it's just our believe (allthough we're rightSmile). If we fight against them (we the western, free world) we must follow higher standards than we await of them.
 
I don't know what you mean with your last statement. Of course American helped Germans after the war. I know that Germans do never forget this. Of course there is Anti-americanism in Germany, but that's all around the world and the reasons for it are quite different. The most Germans believe that Americans are friends. Perhaps we have a different definition of "friend". If a friend is doing wrong, you have to tell him about it. You have to stop him and to bring him back on the right way. It is not a friend's job to blow his friend sugar in his ass (as we say in Germany). So the so-called Anti-americanism gets strong if Americans act against the things this state, this people stand for. It was so at the Vietnam war, during the Iraq war on terror and because of the behavior in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the world. That's why Germans do not often demonstrate against Russia. Russian doesn't stay for freedom, peace and human rights. as I told you, people don't expect good.....
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 13:27
The Allies won the war so the Germans were criminals. Had it been the other way around then we become the criminals!
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 14:22

That's what in the official sources would say. But I do believe it wouldn't be right. Whether we had lost the war or not, there were too many crimes we commited. Whatever the Western Allies did, it was not as  bad at all, as what we did.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 17:32

A comparison of W Allied and German "crimes", genocide, check, occupation of other countries, check, wars of agression, check.

 
Agree with Peteratwar, the only difference is who won who lost.
 
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 17:53
Perhaps the difference isn't as great as we all would wish, but I don't think we shouldn't make a difference.

Edited by beorna - 08-May-2008 at 19:58
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 18:38
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

 

Originally posted by beorna

So it is difficult to say, did the terror bombing save the lifes of allied soldiers. It is the same with Japan, the Japanese were in contact with the Allies to surrender.

The Japanese were not at war with  the Allies , only with the U.S.A. , also,  until the Emperor so decreed, there was never talk of surrender , only a halt of hostilities with honor.

The Japanese had been at war with the Chinese since the start of WW2 in 1937. They'd been at war with the British and the Dutch since the attacks on Malaya and what is now Indonesia, and the French since the invasion of Indo-China. I don't know when Australia, New Zealand and Canada officially entered the conflict.

 

The official Instrument of Surrender was signed by, apart from Japan, the US, the UK, the USSR, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands and New Zealand - i.e. the Allies.
 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2008 at 20:57
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

Yes they did indeed. The Governor of Saxony for instance absolutely prohibited city  residents from leaving their points of registered residences.

Actually, the Germans did evacuate non essential personnel for the cities. This included Berlin and Dresden.  The governor's order probably referred to essential personnel.  This would be no different than British authorities prohibiting key workers from leaving certain cities at the height of the blitz.  
 
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

Well, the kerfuffle following the 'outing' of the German author Gunter Grass as having been a member of the 'Waffen  SS' emphasized the fact , that he ,who was called to arms ,better did so ,and did well , or else. 

That hardly proves that German soldiers fought only becayse they were drugged, brainwashed or coerced.  The author simply wished to distance himself from the NAZI regime (not that I blame him).  In the end, the contention that the opponent's motivations are simply the result of brainwashing etc is propaganda that can lead to dangerously under estimating him. It does not matter whether the enemy is WWII Germany or modern day Jihaders, there is more driving them than brainwashing, drugs etc. .  
 
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

1) it does not behoove us to judge over our forbearer's decion making processes.

2) WWII slid on both sides into total war -pronounced so on the German side.
I think we can and should judge or forebearers decision processes like mass bombing (point 1).  But... we also need to keep in mind the historical context, well illustrated in your point 2 .
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

Figures climbed as high as 250.000 even 300.000. Neonazis feasted on those numbers  

I agree, the actual, non political Dresden fatalities are closer to 35-50,000.
 


Edited by Cryptic - 08-May-2008 at 21:24
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 09:57
If one wanted to be picky then in a TOTAL war there are no civilians. Who makes the munitions for instance ? If it is OK to kill a soldier who is shooting at you why is it not OK to kill the person providing him with the wherewithal ? Or who is growing to be his successor ?
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 10:39
Yes, and every pregnant woman bears a soldier, every baby will be one day a soldier or a mother. So let's kill everybody. No remorce!Angry
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 11:03
With the same logic you can say, it was good that Hitler killed the jews. We don't know what they would have done! If we respect no rules, all we do, will come back to us.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 11:29

Originally posted by beorna

The Germans didn't trust the Nazis less when the bombing increased more and more. They lost their hopes to win the war, but it didn't made them stop fighting.

I see it that way as well. Cheers

Originally posted by beorna

You're right that a lot of German troops surrendered. There were a lot of commanders that saw that it was helpful to go on fighting and that Germany couldn't win the war. But till the end Germans was fighting and especially in the east.

Point taken.Smile

Depends what you call ‘end’ . Towards the end ,  German troops in the east rushed toward the west in order to prevent falling into the hands of detested Ruassians.

Originally posted by beorna

You asked why the Germans didn't stop the hostilities, the war. There are different reasons. And probably different Germans have different reasons. Fear of punishment was one reason. I don't mean punished by Nazis, that was a reason too. I mean those of the Allies and the Russians. They treatened the Germans well after WWI, what could come now. And I believe a lot of soldiers told their families what was going on in the east. As it happened later Germans were right to fear the Russian and Polish revange.

You mention fear of internal punishment and external retribution  or vengeance. I imagine  that must have certainly weighted prominently on many peoples mind.

Yet it  had always been a hope of  the Anglos that Germany would have the intestinal fortitude to rid herself of the monster in her midst –  sue for a truce under negotiated conditions – and take it from there.  As long as you have armies under arms you can negotiate , Germany missed her point of no return . There were many reasons , you mentioned fear , an other one , which I find phony , was brought up during the Nuremberg trials:  sworn allegiance toward the leader of the country.

The notion of unconditional /unqualified  allegiance to a person seems absurd to me.

 

Originally posted by beorna

 But on the other hand I can ask as well, why didn't the Britans stop fighting they were chanceless?

There is a simple  answer to that : Churchill under NO circumstances would allow the isles of Britain to be trampled on by Nazy jackboots. In this he was wholeheartedly supported by the British populace , the cabinet and of course the Crown.

Originally posted by beorna

  well, as long as you're fighting there is allways a chance to win, isn't it?

No.

Originally posted by beorna

   In 1945 Germany wasn't as organised as usual. You wrote it. Troops were hastely send to the east, because the fear of Russian was a hundred times greater than those of the allies. Refugees fleed to the West. They weren't counted. You said: Not those counts (100.00) again. I didn't speak about 250 or 300.00. I do believe that Nazi propaganda gave those counts. But these 20.000 are usually Dresdeners. What's with all the others? How many were in Dresden, how many survived. It was not my intention to give a great amount of bodies. Even 20.000 killed civilians are too much, or? Of course bombing cities is allways terror, especially if the targets are just civilians. If you want to hear from me tht the bombing of Belgrad, Warsaw, Rotterdam and other cities was terror bombing too, yes I believe so. But as I said, the Nazis were criminals.

There is no cause for disagreement here. Big%20smile

You mentioned the refugees fleeing to the west. I stand to be corrected , but as far as I know, there were more than 2 Million people of German descent on the move westward ,  Baltic Sea ports etc. , one of the largest flow of refugees ever recorded.
 

Originally posted by beorna

    I expect good guys to behave better than bad guys. Otherwise where is the difference.

Surely , properties of those adjectives lie in the eyes of their beholders. 

Originally posted by beorna

    As far as I know the Japanese side tried to capitulate under conditions. It was the US side that wanted unconditional surrender. By the way that is another reason why Germans fought until the end.

How? I am not aware of any documents to that effect .

Originally posted by beorna

     You can't win an assymetrial war if you hold your hands tied? As we see today, you can't win an assymetrial war with soldiers. Perhaps killing, bombing, torturing isn't the answer to assymetrial wars.

Well, the U.S. has the means of surgically ending any conflict within minutes. Other powers may in the future exhibit less or no scrupels.

Originally posted by beorna

     But I think WWII wasn't assymetrial.

Neither do I .

Originally posted by beorna

    The use of phosphor bombs and others (I am sorry I don't now all these english terms) should make the population afraid. It should break their strenght. From military side it is ok.

I have heard first hand accounts about those chemical weapons . (phosphor) Awful isn’t the word. Dead

I am vehemently opposed to any biological or chemical weapons  as well as landmines.  (Fanatics w/o scruples may see here a golden opportunity – back to asymmetry)

Originally posted by beorna

     I think everybody wants to win a war, but then we should put all these moral in a waste basket. That is why I mentioned Muslim terrorists. Of course I didn't want to compare British soldiers with them. But everybody fights because he believes he is right. So muslim terorists too. We don't think so, but it's just our believe (allthough we're right ). If we fight against them (we the western, free world) we must follow higher standards than we await of them.

Yes. as long as one can afford those 'higher standarts'.

History  has taught, that  tolerance is not infinitive. The right and will to live and to survive will ultimately outweigh all other considerations.

Originally posted by beorna

    I don't know what you mean with your last statement. Of course American helped Germans after the war. I know that Germans do never forget this.

Nice of you to mention that . Cheers

Originally posted by beorna

     Of course there is Anti-Americanism in Germany, but that's all around the world and the reasons for it are quite different. The most Germans believe that Americans are friends.

Well, according to a 2004 PEW research  ~ 68% of Germans ‘approved’ of Americans but 38% disapproved of America. The figures should not be any better today.

Indeed , there are scholarly works  dealing  with ‘obsessive anti-Americanism’.  IMHO the European , i.e. German/French media landscape and a not insignificant sector of  German/French population qualify for that characterization.

Originally posted by beorna

      Perhaps we have a different definition of "friend". If a friend is doing wrong, you have to tell him about it. You have to stop him and to bring him back on the right way. It is not a friend's job to blow his friend sugar in his ass (as we say in Germany).

Well of course , friends should be able to criticize another and if so asked offer helpful suggestions.

Originally posted by beorna

      So the so-called Anti-americanism gets strong if Americans act against the things this state, this people stand for. It was so at the Vietnam war, during the Iraq war on terror and because of the behavior in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the world. That's why Germans do not often demonstrate against Russia. Russian doesn't stay for freedom, peace and human rights. as I told you, people don't expect good..... 

Well, humans everywhere are prone to fail.  Big%20smile

It seems to me though, that Europeans treat every American glitch with  unmitigated glee.  Anyway , it’s a bit off topic – may even warrant it’s own thread.

Thanks for your frank opinion Big%20smile

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 11:48
I should be more careful, sorry.
Originally posted by beorna

You're right that a lot of German troops surrendered. There were a lot of commanders that saw that it was helpful NOT to go on fighting and that Germany couldn't win the war. But till the (AND THEIR) end Germans was fighting and especially in the east.
 
They DIDN'T treat the Germans well after WWI, what could come now.  
 
Originally posted by beorna

As far as I know the Japanese side tried to capitulate under conditions. It was the US side that wanted unconditional surrender. By the way that is another reason why Germans fought until the end.
Sorry I can't give you sources. I just can rember I heard or read it in a lesson I had on University about a decade ago. I studied Old and medieval history. I usually try to stay away from modern history. But as you can see it doesn't work. So I am not a professional in modern history.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 11:59

Originally posted by Sparten

A comparison of W Allied and German "crimes", genocide, check, occupation of other countries, check, wars of agression, check.

 

Agree with Peteratwar, the only difference is who won who lost.

 

 

 The rationale for such an agreement escapes me. 

I would submit , that both the  amount and intensity of   'wrongs'  committed by the anglo Allies tilts the scale only in a miniscule way  vs. the sum total of German crimes against humanity.  An other poster said something similar to this effect , if I understanf him correctly.

 

However , it has also been said in English circles ,  if there would have been an inverse outcome of the war,  British military and political leadership would find itself as defendents in the dock.  I am convinced about that to a certain extend myself -  i.e. the use of delayed fuse bombs : they  were supposed to inflict the greated possible physical harm to civilians  and rescue  orgs -  it had nothing to do with 'dehousing' .

Originally posted by gcle2003

The Japanese had been at war with the Chinese since the start of WW2 in 1937. They'd been at war with the British and the Dutch since the attacks on Malaya and what is now Indonesia, and the French since the invasion of Indo-China. I don't know when Australia, New Zealand and Canada officially entered the conflict.

 

The official Instrument of Surrender was signed by, apart from Japan, the US, the UK, the USSR, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands and New Zealand - i.e. the Allies.

 

Thanks for the correction , Smile

Yes,  of course you are right , my mind was locked on the MISSOURI.

What I now , via your correction , learned  was, that  reps of the other Allied forces  ,  must have been present at the surrender signing ceremony . (I am guessing only , it just seems logical since their signature is there)

 

After Pearl , Canada + Australia  had joined the U.S.A.  declaring war against Japan.

 
Originally posted by Cryptic

Actually, the Germans did evacuate non essential personnel for the cities. This included Berlin and Dresden. 

 

Yes , I agree  as far as,  let’s say Cologne , Essen , Berlin etc are concerned.

 

Dresden was a bit different though.

Dresdners  did not see any reason to take off  , to the contrary , they thought if there ever was a save spot , Dresden  would be it :  per TheHaag Convention , she was  an Open City = off limit for enemy hostilities. .  It was  assumed  , the Allies would spare the  ‘Roccoco  Jewel’. 

 

Indeed ,  Germany’s mothers were called upon , to send  kids to relatives or friends in Dresden , special trains were made available toward that effort.

However ,  Dresden was in  reality an undeclared Fortress on account of her war production ,  communication and transportation facilities.  The Governor of Saxony at the last  dying days of  war , changed Dresden’s status  to  'fortress' , all available hands could thus be employed for  fortification work.

 

Originally posted by Cryptic

  This would be no different than British authorities prohibiting key workers from leaving certain cities at the height of the blitz.  

Good point.Approve

Originally posted by Cryptic

  That hardly proves that German soldiers fought only becayse they were drugged, brainwashed or coerced.  The author simply wished to distance himself from the NAZI regime (not that I blame him). 

Of course , Guenter Grass did not wish  to be stigmatized by being mentioned in one breath  with the Waffen SS.

Yet , before he was drafted,  G.G.  had also volunteered to join up , but was rejected due to age. He , as well as other millions , were ‘brainwashed’ to fight for the good of the fatherland , to correct the shame of Versaille . Boys 10 years onward were indoctrinated with those ideas.

This is not to say, that every Wehrmacht conscript nmecessarily was an enthusiastic soldier. Of course not.  The Waffen SS on the other Hand consisted overwhelmingly of enthusiastic ‘patriots’ .

 

Modern day Jihadists have nothing to do with ‘patriotism’ nor defending ones country against a military assault.

 

Originally posted by Cryptic

   I think we can and should judge or forebearers decision processes like mass bombing (point 1).  But... we also need to keep in mind the historical context, well illustrated in your point 2 .

I respectfully disagree.Shocked

IMHO you can never can judge somebody , unless you are in his/her shoes – much  less so , if  events date back a long time.
 
Historians always emphasize that their job is to uncover facts, show their backgrounds and connections - but not to judge.
 

It is for this reason, that I reject for instance today’s politically correct motivated  criticism  against U.S.  internment camps for Japanese .

Canada had done exactly the same thing , she also rounded up her Japanese AND Germans subjects and lodged them in specially constructed internment camps. ( where , by all accounts , they were rather  well treated hence did not bellyache too much about it) .

I believe  the U.K. also interned  German subjects , but I’m not sure of it.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 12:07
Originally posted by beorna

I should be more careful, sorry.
Originally posted by beorna

You're right that a lot of German troops surrendered. There were a lot of commanders that saw that it was helpful NOT to go on fighting and that Germany couldn't win the war. But till the (AND THEIR) end Germans was fighting and especially in the east.
 
They DIDN'T treat the Germans well after WWI, what could come now.  
 
heheh, that makes more sense does it not?
Thanks for your correction.
 
Originally posted by beorna

As far as I know the Japanese side tried to capitulate under conditions. It was the US side that wanted unconditional surrender. By the way that is another reason why Germans fought until the end.
Sorry I can't give you sources. I just can rember I heard or read it in a lesson I had on University about a decade ago. I studied Old and medieval history. I usually try to stay away from modern history. But as you can see it doesn't work. So I am not a professional in modern history.
 
Well, thanks for the info. I am only a hobbyist myself  -  still on a learning curve. Big%20smile
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 12:18
Originally posted by Peteratwar

If one wanted to be picky then in a TOTAL war there are no civilians. Who makes the munitions for instance ? If it is OK to kill a soldier who is shooting at you why is it not OK to kill the person providing him with the wherewithal ? Or who is growing to be his successor ?
Well you emphasized TOTAL and there is a reason for it.
Of course what is 'total' , what are the ethics involved , where are guidances, where does von Clausewitz fit in und should he fit in considering todays technology?
 
Anyway , 70 years ago that was certainly the line of reasoning around Harris.
 
Please keep in mind that it was not shared with his boss but Churchill would not have had too many qualms about it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 12:59
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

Depends what you call ‘end’ . Towards the end ,  German troops in the east rushed toward the west in order to prevent falling into the hands of detested Ruassians.
That's right

Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

The notion of unconditional /unqualified  allegiance to a person seems absurd to me.

I have to search for my dictionary. I didn't understand this.
 
 
Originally posted by beorna

  well, as long as you're fighting there is allways THE BELIEVE OF HAVING a chance to win, isn't it?

Is this a better answer?
 
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

You mentioned the refugees fleeing to the west. I stand to be corrected , but as far as I know, there were more than 2 Million people of German descent on the move westward ,  Baltic Sea ports etc. , one of the largest flow of refugees ever recorded.
Well, I don't know yet how many people fleed during the war to the west, some fled in front of the Russians, some before or were evacuated, others stayed, some came back to the Russian occupied territories and were expelled later again. All in all about 10 Millions lost their homes, but not all were fleeing during the war. From about 11 Millions in in the east 1937 there were in April and May 1945 just about 4,5 Mio. left. after war over a million went back to the east. About two million people of the refugees lost their lives. so it is very difficult for me to say how many people stayed in Dresden in february 1945. Troops, evacuated people, refgees, I can't say how many they were.
 
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

History  has taught, that  tolerance is not infinitive. The right and will to live and to survive will ultimately outweigh all other considerations.
I don't speak about tolerance, of course this has an end. But if you show your enemies not perspective in the future, if you insist in unconditionell surrender, I don't know if it is good. I am giving my best usually too, when it's at the end or sometimes too lateSmile
 
Originally posted by Churchill FDR fan

Well, according to a 2004 PEW research  ~ 68% of Germans ‘approved’ of Americans but 38% disapproved of America. The figures should not be any better today.

Indeed , there are scholarly works  dealing  with ‘obsessive anti-Americanism’.  IMHO the European , i.e. German/French media landscape and a not insignificant sector of  German/French population qualify for that characterization.

In Germany we say: I just trust those statistics I manipulated by myself. I worked for an institute that made such researchs. If you ask the right questions, you'll get the answers you want. Perhaps a lot of Germans don't like the USA because of their policy, their strenght, their behavior around the world, perhaps they don't like the Americans because they sometimes appear loud and arrogant. But I am not sure if all of those Germans have met an american before. I was as an soldier on an US Base in Germany for training and I once stayed in Anchorage Airport on my way to Japan. If I don't count these people, I am not sure I saw a lot Americans in my life. I talked to two US citizens, but the most US citizens I spoke with are people from my family that emigrated to the US or friends of my family who did so. So I am very sure that I know more Germans that I don't like than I know Americans, allthough it could seem sometimes that I am Anti-american too. I wouldn't say so. I think it's generally easy for people to hate men they don't know. On the other hand, if you would ask Germans were they would like to live, I think America would be under the states at the top of that list.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.