Bomber command memorial (1 Viewer)

[Mitch]

Boris has toned down a bit but, he will IMO be the best person to rebuke this stupidity as he knows what it means to the families and everyone who holds dear what these brave people gave up.
Mitch

 

[Rob]

I can never imagine how terrible that firestorm was in Dresden that night, thousands of innocent civlians being killed from the air is a terrible thing. But Germany was riddled with a cancer that had to be removed, however painfully so the other decent Germans could along with the rest of Europe live in peace.

In a way what we think of the bombing is of no relevance, more important is the thoughts of the people alive at the time, and having talked to many of them over the years I can tell you that nearly every single one of them wanted Germany to ' get it back tenfold'.

All bombing is terrible and we asked our Bomber crews to do a difficult, stressful and very dangerous job. We have the right to remember them, anybody who does not agree does not have to visit the memorial, that is their right too, that is what freedom is, the right to choose. And freedom was brought at an enormous cost.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

Its funny but, I have spoken to some german friends in Hamburg about this issue as Hamburg was hit really badly on many times and they have little problem with a monument to remember the fallen even though they lost family members in those attacks.

My friends stated that it may be their way of either accepting german guilt over the war or, trying to be as difficult as they can be during a time when it is very newsworthy to get over their stupid point.

I understand it might be difficult for them but, I have never heard from all the people I have spoken to and seen interviewed on docs like we are now watching calling german bomber crews 'war criminals'. It seems the more I read about those who are saying this the more they seem to have ulterior motives and alliances.
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Rob...

Its funny but, I have spoken to some german friends in Hamburg about this issue as Hamburg was hit really badly on many times and they have little problem with a monument to remember the fallen even though they lost family members in those attacks.

My friends stated that it may be their way of either accepting german guilt over the war or, trying to be as difficult as they can be during a time when it is very newsworthy to get over their stupid point.

I understand it might be difficult for them but, I have never heard from all the people I have spoken to and seen interviewed on docs like we are now watching calling german bomber crews 'war criminals'. It seems the more I read about those who are saying this the more they seem to have ulterior motives and alliances.
Mitch

Well said Mitch. You simply do not see the Luftwaffe raids described as war crimes that often. Its kind of accepted by everyone as an element of the War, but somehow because Dresden was so bad thats different?. Where does it say a certain number of deaths by bombing is ok, but after that its a war crime?. Are the deaths of those 650 on the first day of the Blitz less worthy than those of Dresden, of course not.

People focus on Dresden as its seen as an attack on civilians, but I've never heard anyone condemn that second wave on the first day of the Blitz that killed civvies totally at random.

No, we all need to move on and mend bridges and live in peace. However if we want to remember our Bomber Crews that is entirely for us to decide and we do not need to give in to 'Pc-ness'. As you said yesterday, long overdue.

As Queenie will be opening the memorial I doubt I'll be able to get too close on that day, but I'll be there.

Rob

 

[Combat]

There was a show on History International (I believe) last night which pointed out a couple interesting items on the bombing campaign - including that Britain considered it a crime to bomb civilian populations at least until 1938. The idea of targeting civilians in order to undermine support for the nazis also backfired. It actually caused many Germans to support the regime in response to having their homes and families targeted. It also misdirected resources away from German industries such as oil production that would have had a greater impact on shortening the war. In fact, German war production increased as the bombing ramped up reaching a high point in 1944. Strategically the bombing campaign was a failure at almost every level. And then the allies had to rebuild Germany after the war. I don't believe there is much dispute or controversy about any of those facts.

I also seem to recall that Hitler gave specific directions that the Luftwaffe avoid targeting civilian populations at the beginning of BOB. As I recall, and I could be misrembering, a lone German bomber got lost and unknowingly dumped it's bombs on London. Churchill then used this as an excuse to target Berlin with an RAF bombing raid. In response the Germans began targeting civilians. None of that detracts from the bravery of those who undertook those missions. History is just not as cut and dry sometimes as we might hope.

 

[Rob]

There was a show on History International (I believe) last night which pointed out a couple interesting items on the bombing campaign - including that Britain considered it a crime to bomb civilian populations at least until 1938. The idea of targeting civilians in order to undermine support for the nazis also backfired. It actually caused many Germans to support the regime in response to having their homes and families targeted. It also misdirected resources away from German industries such as oil production that would have had a greater impact on shortening the war. In fact, German war production increased as the bombing ramped up reaching a high point in 1944. Strategically the bombing campaign was a failure at almost every level. And then the allies had to rebuild Germany after the war. I don't believe there is much dispute or controversy about any of those facts.

I also seem to recall that Hitler gave specific directions that the Luftwaffe avoid targeting civilians populations at the beginning of BOB. As I recall, and I could be misrembering, a lone German bomber got lost and unknowingly dumped it's bombs on London. Churchill then used this as an excuse to target Berlin with an RAF bombing raid. In response the Germans began targeting civilians. None of that detracts from the bravery of those who undertook those missions. History is just not as cut and dry sometimes as we might hope.

A lone German Bomber or not Doug,personally I don't think the people of this country thought Churchill needed an excuse at all. The idea that the Luftwaffe had only bombed airfields during the battle of Britain is a joke. Hundreds of people in this country were killed or injured who lived in towns and villages around airfields throughout the summer of 1940. By the time the RAF hit back at Berlin it was long overdue in many peoples eyes, and I don't think any of us seriously think the Luftwaffe would have balked at bombing cities at some point anyway.

I have no idea what effect Allied Bombing had on the German morale in the second half of the War, but I know one thing for sure, it had a hell of a good effect on British morale knowing the Germans were getting back what they started and on a bigger more devastating scale. I'm sure the people of London, Coventry, Liverpool, Hull etc were more than happy with it.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

The retaliatory raid against the german capital after the attack on London was deliberately kept minimum because of the fact that many wished to keep the war seen as gentlemanly even though the Nazi's had shown utter disregard to european cities. It was also due to the fact that industrial targets were seen as private property.

Maniacle Hitler then decided possibly through pride or embarrasment to launch into the speech of increasing the bomb loads on british cities. Had the accident you state not occured it would have only been a matter of time before other targets were actioned and, this is also shown in conversations with Hitler and his air chiefs.

Strategically a failure..... Not so sure that could be true. How many germans were defending the reich? millions how many AA guns that could have been used against allied troops were there... Millions? All targets were hit again and again and, no strategically important targets were missed including the Rumanian oil fields ball bearing plants etc.

It was not high on the list for Bomber Harris to get German folk to turn against the High command it was to bring the germans to their knee's the comment was hoped to be achieved by politicians but, I don't think anyone thought it would happen alone.

Whether the german arms output increased or not is probably more down to the resiliance of the enemy than the failure of the campaign and, for thought, what would the german war output have been say we had not bombed by day and night? A lot more dead allied troops and even not winning the war at all. Sadly, only a very few think the latter was an option. Total war means just that and we did not start it but, you do everything you can to defeat the enemy and thats what was done.
Mitch

 

[Combat]

A lone German Bomber or not Doug,personally I don't think the people of this country thought Churchill needed an excuse at all. The idea that the Luftwaffe had only bombed airfields during the battle of Britain is a joke. Hundreds of people in this country were killed or injured who lived in towns and villages around airfields throughout the summer of 1940. By the time the RAF hit back at Berlin it was long overdue in many peoples eyes, and I don't think any of us seriously think the Luftwaffe would have balked at bombing cities at some point anyway.

Rob

Just pointing out that the issue is more complex than presented in this thread. Most importantly, that the bombing campaign in Europe didn't shorten the war by one minute. A massive waste of lives both to the allied flight crews (American and British) and the German civilians who died in these raids. The issue of whether it was a crime or not is a complex one that we can have opinions on but won't resolve. For example, you indicate that Churchill did not need an excuse to target German civilians. However, it was the official position of the British government that doing so was a crime - at least until the war began. That doesn't mean it was a crime just that there are legitimate differences of opinion.

There is also a significant difference between civilian casualities that occur inadvertently due to proximity to legitimate military targets and the actual targeting of civilians themselves. That is a poor example to justify the later. Personally, I don't believe the bombing campaign was a crime just stupidity on behalf of those who ordered these raids on civilians (again that includes Americans) as they had no impact on the ability of the German military to continue the war.

 

[Rob]

Just pointing out that the issue is more complex than presented in this thread. Most importantly, that the bombing campaign in Europe didn't shorten the war by one minute. A massive waste of lives both to the allied flight crews (American and British) and the German civilians who died in these raids. The issue of whether it was a crime or not is a complex one that we can have opinions on but won't resolve. For example, you indicate that Churchill did not need an excuse to target German civilians. However, it was the official position of the British government that doing so was a crime - at least until the war began. That doesn't mean it was a crime just that there are legitimate differences of opinion.

There is also a significant difference between civilian casualities that occur inadvertently due to proximity to legitimate military targets and the actual targeting of civilians themselves. That is a poor example to justify the later. Personally, I don't believe the bombing campaign was a crime just stupidity on behalf of those who ordered these raids on civilians (again that includes Americans) as they had no impact on the ability of the German military to continue the war.

So let me ask you, when the people of this country were pulling the bodies of their loved ones from the rubble of their houses, do you think they gave a toss whether the Germans targeted them on purpose or not ? And having lost their relatives what do you think they wanted this government to do?. What concerns me is you seem to lump my people and Churchill in the same bracket as the Germans, whether supporters of Germany like it or not they were killing our civilians before we were killing theres. Its almost as if you are edging towards saying all were equally to blame?.

Rob

 

[Combat]

The retaliatory raid against the german capital after the attack on London was deliberately kept minimum because of the fact that many wished to keep the war seen as gentlemanly even though the Nazi's had shown utter disregard to european cities. It was also due to the fact that industrial targets were seen as private property.

Maniacle Hitler then decided possibly through pride or embarrasment to launch into the speech of increasing the bomb loads on british cities. Had the accident you state not occured it would have only been a matter of time before other targets were actioned and, this is also shown in conversations with Hitler and his air chiefs.

Strategically a failure..... Not so sure that could be true. How many germans were defending the reich? millions how many AA guns that could have been used against allied troops were there... Millions? All targets were hit again and again and, no strategically important targets were missed including the Rumanian oil fields ball bearing plants etc.

It was not high on the list for Bomber Harris to get German folk to turn against the High command it was to bring the germans to their knee's the comment was hoped to be achieved by politicians but, I don't think anyone thought it would happen alone.

Whether the german arms output increased or not is probably more down to the resiliance of the enemy than the failure of the campaign and, for thought, what would the german war output have been say we had not bombed by day and night? A lot more dead allied troops and even not winning the war at all. Sadly, only a very few think the latter was an option. Total war means just that and we did not start it but, you do everything you can to defeat the enemy and thats what was done.
Mitch

Mitch-
I think you are on shaky ground here if your point is that Britain targeted German civilians because of something the Germans might have done, but had not done up to the time of the Berlin raid. I assume that raid was "limited" based on distance and bomber resources at that time and not out of concern for German civilians. In addition, any argument that the targeting of German civilians had a strategic impact on the German military has been debunked by any serious historian. The primary objective was to break German civilian morale and lead to an overthrow of the Nazi regime. It didn't happen. The massive resources and loss of life devoted to these missions was not intended just to tie up German school boys and old men with AA guns (which would have been manned in any case). So it failed. I really don't believe there is any serious disagreement on that point. The best argument that can be made is that all is fair in war. The allies believed the raids would break German morale and they turned out to be wrong on that point.

 

[Mitch]

Where is your proof that the war was not shortened by one minute????

What is the significant difference in killing civillians near military targets???

Did you by any chance see the Biggin Hill documentary or, read any of the history of attacks by germans on civillians in the UK before the bombing of London, where the germans knew the civillian village and its boundaries and still attacked them.
Mitch

 

[Mitch]

Combat....

Do not quite understand your first sentence as it was not what I said. Britain targeted german civillians because of something the germans might have done. Nowhere was it implied or stated. We attacked Berlin because London was bombed plain and simple and, IMO a correct response. The raid was minimal because of the reasons stated and, also we had bombers Halifax etc that could have done more damage. So, no shaky ground here.

It has been proven and can give you evidence that many germans who would have been placed on the front lines were held back to defend the reich from air attack. It is another myth that every gun was crewed by old men and boys. I refer you to Bomber Harris when he said '' some say bombing alone cannot win a war... Well I say its never been tried'' not exact but, it gets the point over. Had the air war not been implemented Germany would have been stronger and would have taken longer to be defeated
Mitch

Mitch-
I think you are on shaky ground here if your point is that Britain targeted German civilians because of something the Germans might have done, but had not done up to the time of the Berlin raid. I assume that raid was "limited" based on distance and bomber resources at that time and not out of concern for German civilians. In addition, any argument that the targeting of German civilians had a strategic impact on the German military has been debunked by any serious historian. The primary objective was to break German civilian morale and led to an overthrow of the Nazi regime. It didn't happen. The massive resources and loss of life devoted to these missions was not intended just to tie up German school boys and old men with AA guns (which would have been manned in any case). So it failed. I really don't believe there is any serious disagreement on that point. The best argument that can be made is that all is fair in war. The allies believed the raids would break German morale and they turned out to be wrong on that point.

 

[Gazza]

Quote from Combat:

"Most importantly, that the bombing campaign in Europe didn't shorten the war by one minute"

Really....what is they say, 'a picture says a thousand words'. Well, he's 5 thousand words then

Tirpitz

Dambusters

German occupied railway yard in N.France

Railway Viaduct at Bielefeld, Germany

V2 Development site before and after

As for German's targeting civilians - of course no track record of that with Zepplins in WW1, bombing of Guernica in 1938, Poland 1939 etc etc ....

Cheers

Gazza

 

[Rob]

Quote from Combat:

"Most importantly, that the bombing campaign in Europe didn't shorten the war by one minute"

Really....what is they say, 'a picture says a thousand words'. Well, he's 5 thousand words then

Tirpitz

Dambusters

German occupied railway yard in N.France

Railway Viaduct at Bielefeld, Germany

V2 Development site before and after

As for German's targeting civilians - of course no track record of that with Zepplins in WW1, bombing of Guernica in 1938, Poland 1939 etc etc ....

Cheers

Gazza

Excellent pics Gazza, its hard to argue that these events didn't have a shortening effect on the war. And of course the Germans had form in WW1 in bombing London, again many civilians killed by the Zeppelins , so it was always in the German psyche to kill civilians in this manner. There is a misconception that German airmen were chivalrous in WW1, well the pilots of the Zeppelin 'Baby killers' certainly were not.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Bloody good bombing accuracy for the time. I bet all those old men and boys on the ground and aboard the Tirpitz got a shock.
They certainly are reaping the whirlwind
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Bloody good bombing accuracy for the time. I bet all those old men and boys on the ground and aboard the Tirpitz got a shock.
They certainly are reaping the whirlwind
Mitch

Wasn't the Tirpitz bottled up in there for sometime before being sunk?. That must have saved hundreds of lives and thousands of tons of shipping.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

Yes she was and what a threat she was for the naval command and her destruction freed up valuable resources which, I am sure shortened the war by at least three minutes lol
Mitch

Wasn't the Tirpitz bottled up in there for sometime before being sunk?. That must have saved hundreds of lives and thousands of tons of shipping.

Rob

 

[Combat]

Quote from Combat:

"Most importantly, that the bombing campaign in Europe didn't shorten the war by one minute"

Really....what is they say, 'a picture says a thousand words'. Well, he's 5 thousand words then

Tirpitz

Dambusters

German occupied railway yard in N.France

Railway Viaduct at Bielefeld, Germany

V2 Development site before and after

As for German's targeting civilians - of course no track record of that with Zepplins in WW1, bombing of Guernica in 1938, Poland 1939 etc etc ....

Cheers

Gazza

I'm no expert but those appear to be MILITARY targets. The discussion relates to the impact of targeting civilian populations. In fact, these pictures support the premise that the allies should have focused their bombing resources on such targets and not German cities. That is not a controversial or anti-British statement.

 

[Rob]

I'm no expert but those appear to be MILITARY targets. The discussion relates to the impact of targeting civilian populations. In fact, these pictures support the premise that the allies should have focused their bombing resources on such targets and not German cities. That is not a controversial or anti-British statement.

Well Doug it does sound pretty anti British, you don't appear to condemn the Germans in anyway at all for the commencement of civilian bombing or the War in general that I would expect most folk would and yet you seem to expect the British not to want to hit back. Now I don't know you or know if you are anti British, but I put it to you that you cannot possibly understand the depth of feeling that the bombing of my country caused, you seem happy to critizise Churchill but I don't hear a word about Goering and co??. Perhaps your sympathies lie with the German airmen in WW1 because of your avatar, but perhaps a real study of the lives lost in this country during WW2 may help you understand a little more of what we went through and therefore our right to hit back.Lets just remember who started the war and just how much support Hitler had from his civilian population...when they were winning.

Rob

 

[uksubs]

Just pointing out that the issue is more complex than presented in this thread. Most importantly, that the bombing campaign in Europe didn't shorten the war by one minute. A massive waste of lives both to the allied flight crews (American and British) and the German civilians who died in these raids. The issue of whether it was a crime or not is a complex one that we can have opinions on but won't resolve. For example, you indicate that Churchill did not need an excuse to target German civilians. However, it was the official position of the British government that doing so was a crime - at least until the war began. That doesn't mean it was a crime just that there are legitimate differences of opinion.

There is also a significant difference between civilian casualities that occur inadvertently due to proximity to legitimate military targets and the actual targeting of civilians themselves. That is a poor example to justify the later. Personally, I don't believe the bombing campaign was a crime just stupidity on behalf of those who ordered these raids on civilians (again that includes Americans) as they had no impact on the ability of the German military to continue the war.

I think your find that the joint bombing campaign tied up a lot of German manpower & material that could of been better used at the front , just take a look how big the manpower was in the flak arm for a start , the US 8 air forces tied up the Luftwaffe & played a big part in there down full ,bomber command played a big part in taken out V1 & v2 sites as well