Historical Discussions - All Opinions Welcome (2 Viewers)

I'm afraid that I don't believe in the "total war" concept. If total war is okay, then what's wrong with terrorism. Bombing civilian populations without a legitimate military target is just plain wrong. The entire Blitz on London was just plain criminal, as was any Allied attack purely on civilians (if there was no military target in Dresden then those responsible were war criminals, but I thought the railyards there were the supposedly legit target). The truth of the matter is that the first true "war criminal" from the standpoint of ordering a non-military raid on a civilian population (and boy am I going to catch heck from you Brits - let me say this now, I admire him more than any other leader of the 20th Century, but facts are facts) was Winston Churchill. Early on in 1940, he realized that the Germans were winning the Battle of Britain by attacking the airfields, and, when one lost Dornier dumped its load over a British City (Hitler has specifically ordered that the cities were not to be targeted) Churchill saw his chance to refocus the German attack and save Britain so he took it: he ordered a raid on Berlin, gambling that Hitler would retailiate on British cities and stop waging his offensive on the British airfields. He was strategically right, and it worked, but what he did was morally wrong, costing the lives of tens of thousands of his own people, as well as many German civilians. But being a vigilante is also criminal, and I advocatede it in my last post. So maybe, sometimes, the ends do justify the means. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be the leader who had to make that decision. Right, wrong or indifferent, Churchill and FDR were giants. If the leaders we had today were half the men they were, I would sleep a lot more soundly at night.
 
Dave,

I'm mainly into WWII stuff but because my Grandfather was in the Australian 12th Light Horse in Gallipoli (Turkey) and Egypt I have collected a few WWI figures (mainly Aussies) over the years - as well as inherited some WWI military items and 'issues' :)

My Grandfather's main issue was that the British Navy (under Churchill) landed the ANZAC troops at the base of high cliffs on Gallipoli instead of further down the coast where it was flatter country. From an Australian viewpoint Gallipoli has a developed a similar tradition to 'The Alamo' in the US. The main difference being the troops at Gallipoli weren't defeated there - but eventually it was decided that they make a 'strategic withdrawal'.
 
Hi guys,

Total war is what it is. Declared war by legitimate governments or as Clauswitz so astutely observed extension of political aims by another method. But the key to this is Governments not a bunch of thugs and zealots. As for Dresden it was payback pure and simple. I dont condone it but I understand it and we dont have a clue as to how desperate they were in England and as Louis has pointed out Churchill had to make a bold statement in order to try and divert some of the bomb loads onto targets that would not as deeply affect the means to defend the island. We can sit here and look at it and try and force our modern ideas upon the situation but it won't wash the plain and simple fact is we have no idea how they felt or probably how deeply scared they were that they were going to end up like the rest of Europe. I for one am glad they made the decisions they made and am glad we dont face similar decisions yet.

Onto Gallipoli,

I would have to agree with your grandfathers the point of invasion sucked. The terrain totally favored the defender and even the Turkish Army could get its act together to pull that one off. It is a mystery to me why they decided to try and take that particular place even if the plan was just to draw troops away from Palistine it was a really lousy place to try an assault. However I will also say that my area of study has been tanks and tank development and the campaigns in sub-saharan Africa.

Anyway, I look forward to more discussions of this sort they are quite a lot of fun.

Dave
 
The railyards were the pretext for the bombing of Dresden but they were relatively unscathed. In Armageddon, Hasting writes that it "was merely one among a dozen undamaged urban areas which had been listed for months on Sir Arthur Harris's target board at High Wycombe -- his notorious schedule of unfinished business in Germany. The demolition of itemized cities was essential to the fulfillment of his vision for the triumpth of air power."

According to Hastings, Harris was encouraged by Churchill to bomb targets in Eastern Germany to show Stalin the force of allied airpower, especially with Yalta so close. It was freak meteorological conditions that turned Dresden into a firestorm.
 
This justification of total war brings to mind the character of General Jack Ripper (Sterling Haydon) or, better yet, General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) in one of the greatest movies ever made, Dr. Strangelove. If I recall correctly, it was the President (Peter Sellers) saying, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!" Priceless.
 
There is a basic fundamental difference between the targeting of people for extermination and the killing of civilians in battle. It is overly simplistic to say that x number of people died in the holocaust and x number of people died as the result of bombing raids in an attempt to end the war - therefore they are equally "bad." You can argue that the targeting of civilian populations in germany and japan was a poor military strategy but there is no moral equivalency with the holocaust. Not even close.
 
Louis, you've mentioned just a few of the many myths and half truths of WWII. Sadly propaganda, then and now, together with inaccurate war movies etc makes it harder for us to pick the c**p from clay.

It is wrong to blame Churchill, he ordered the attack on Berlin purely as a moral boast for British citizens to show that the Brits could hit back if Hitler continued to bomb London. Btw there were German raids on London airfields etc prior to the lost bomber incident(s). And how was Churchill to know that Hitler would switch attacks completely (more or less) from airfields to London and other cities?

The fact that Hitler did this was unexpected. However in the end it was a blessing as the British would have lost the Battle of Britain if attacks on airfields etc continued (they were losing two planes to one). In the balance it was the loss of those civilian lives compared to a loss of many more if the German invasion had gone ahead. But Churchill NEVER planed it to happen - it's just another myth people use to sell their books etc.

Btw the German blitz raids were concentrated on the dock areas and other strategic targets however their accuracy was not much better than the British, especially at night.

Dresden and other German cities
I can assure you the men in the RAF, RAAF and no doubt the USAF etc went to great lengths to hit their assigned military targets which included major factories, ships and canals, troop concentrations, rail yards etc. The problem is that most of these targets were in the middle of urban areas and because they bombed from high level (some at night) their accuracy was less than perfect - although at the time no crews were told this.

Dresden had previously been hit by the US Air Force and they were to follow up with another attack which was in the event carried out by the RAF. The attack was to support the Russians by destroying railway yards and German troop concentrations. Methods and bombs used were no different to the many earlier raids on German cities. The main cause of the destruction was the firestorm which was not planed combined with the higher level of accuracy because of the below average AA fire. The fact that the city had not organised an appropriate fire fighting policy did not help. Following the raid Churchill directed more caution with future target selection - he was more shocked than most when results of the raid were revealed. Btw, the railway targets were hit with good accuracy but the Germans had them working again within three days.
 
Last edited:
jazzeum said:
The railyards were the pretext for the bombing of Dresden but they were relatively unscathed. In Armageddon, Hasting writes that it "was merely one among a dozen undamaged urban areas which had been listed for months on Sir Arthur Harris's target board at High Wycombe -- his notorious schedule of unfinished business in Germany. The demolition of itemized cities was essential to the fulfillment of his vision for the triumpth of air power."

According to Hastings, Harris was encouraged by Churchill to bomb targets in Eastern Germany to show Stalin the force of allied airpower, especially with Yalta so close. It was freak meteorological conditions that turned Dresden into a firestorm.
Click to expand...

From what I've read the railyards were well and truly destroyed together with the troop concentrations. But railway lines are soon repaired, and these were running again within three days.

Arthur 'Bomber' Harris got carried away with 'his' Bomber Command, and Churchill had little 'effective' control over him. Mainly due to Harris's popularity with the British public for hitting back the only way they could. In hindsight strategic bombing was less effective than thought at the time, and more heavy bombers should have been used for ground support, anti shipping etc. The problem was that it was only very late in the war that Churchill realised that Bomber Commands strategic bombing was less effective than Harris was telling him.
 
Combat said:
There is a basic fundamental difference between the targeting of people for extermination and the killing of civilians in battle. It is overly simplistic to say that x number of people died in the holocaust and x number of people died as the result of bombing raids in an attempt to end the war - therefore they are equally "bad." You can argue that the targeting of civilian populations in germany and japan was a poor military strategy but there is no moral equivalency with the holocaust. Not even close.
Click to expand...

If you mean with the bombing of Germany and Japan I agree. But of course the Jews aren't the only people that have suffered a 'holocaust'. Just one of many examples are when the Japanese killed huge numbers of Chinese before and during WWII, purely for being Chinese
 
Part of Louis's post" If the leaders we had today were half the men they were, I would sleep a lot more soundly at night."
He was talking about the allied leaders of WWII. And Louis is right on.
I don't think we have people in top leadership that have our country safety at the top of the list. Their party comes first not the country.

As to the of right or wrong about the bombing of city's in WWII. Try to think of it this way. These people are trying to kill my wife, children, me and take my house and land.
NOW WHAT AM I WILING TO DO?
This not a question that I'm going to have to take much time think about. I just hope I have to means to totally destroy this person and his kin.

This is what our Government is here for, to protect its people and their country. It seems to me it only their Party they want to protect.But we are not getting what we are paying for
 
OzDigger said:
From what I've read the railyards were well and truly destroyed together with the troop concentrations. But railway lines are soon repaired, and these were running again within three days.
Click to expand...

According to Hastings, a very reliable historian, the railyards were relatively unscathed but the trains were indeed running up again in several days.
 
Ozdigger,

Its interesting that your information indicates the Churchill story is a myth. I get a portion of my historical information by watching the History Channel (which along with the Discovery Channel and sports networks are about the only TV I watch), and there was an entire hour long special where I learned the information I posted about Churchill and his raid on Berlin. The History Channel program cited to various purported classified documents that supposedly had been declassified recently, as providing the basis for the program. Either they are pulling the wool over our eyes (which is certainly possible, it is after all, television) or this story is more than a myth. I had never heard the story before seeing the program.

Is this a popular piece of misinformation in the Common Wealth nations that only recently found its way to the U.S.? Here in the United States, our big myth about FDR, which historians violently disagree on, is whether he knew the attack was coming on Pearl Harbor in advance because we had broken the Japanese Diplomatic and/or Naval Code(s), but chose to ignore it (other than pulling the carriers out of harms way) because a disaster would draw us into the war in time to relieve Britain. I don't know how much, if any, of this myth is true, but it sure causes heated debate here in the U.S.
 
It's not a story I believe in. Of course, I am biased and think he's the greatest President we ever had.
 
Hi Guys,

I would say the FDR probably expected an attack or rather a declaration of war. But to say he willingly allowed the attack on Hawaii to occur is too much like an xfile. War was on the horizon for everyone and we knew it but I cannot comprehend the type of man it would take to let an attack simply happen. I am not a real big fan of FDR but I am also not a conspiricy nut that would say the President willingly went along with this to get us involved militarily.

Dave
 
Some great information on the thread regarding different historicial issues. We started at Malmédy and went from there. I might be a good idea to start a new thread for some of the topics. We all have an interest in history and it's a large part of the reason why we collect miniatures, but I'm sure that vets like Chuck and lawyers like Louis are probably thinking that we might need some military discipline or a legal framework or sorts in re-organising ourselves, as otherwise we'll find people posting a reply on page 9 of a thread to what someone said on page 6 whilst the guy/gal on page 8 takes offence, thinking that the psot is a reply to his/her issue. So there could be a thread on war crimes and related issues, perhaps one on the background to participation in different wars and so forth. To the uninitiated it would appear very confusing to try to step in on page 72 of a thread.

Just throwing in a further 2c on another issue, but I can recall that there was a major court case in the UK about 2 years ago (Louis can probably quote the reference), in which sharp distinctions were made between Acute Stress Reaction (ASR), chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and so forth when addressing the whole issue of forward psychiatry. Whilst it would appear that there was a lot of work done in the field over the years it is certain that 'battle heart' or 'shell shock' and other terms covered a plethora of afflictions affecting soldiers who were rotated out of the field of combat for only short periods. However, even if a shaky defence for an incident like Malmédy could be argued on the basis of trigger-happy war weary units, it is still clear from the pattern through December 1944 that atrocities were such a regular occurrence that there had to be a responsibility at every level for the conduct of those Waffen SS units such as those under Peipers command.
 
I love the suggestion that Churchill was morally wrong to order the raid on Berlin. That kind of viewpoint is always good to provoke a reaction and cause a chuckle.

I'm not sure that Louis is entirely serious but just in case....

You have to picture the scene. It's 1940. Europe is totally under Nazi control. The Soviets and the Nazi's seem fairly friendly and our mates the Americans have decided to sit this one out and see what happens.

Britain, after standing up and and doing the right thing, is totally alone except for it's far away Commonwealth allies.

The threat of invasion and British surrender is very real. If Britain surrenders, that's it game over. Europe falls to the Nazis. Asia falls to Japan. Russia gets squeezed.

Morale in Britain is at rock bottom.

"Morally wrong" to bomb Berlin and give hope, not just to Britain, but the rest of occupied Europe that it is possible to resist and hurt Germany?

You guys crack me up! :)
 
I am serious. It is morally wrong to kill civilians without a legitimate military purpose. That's the whole concept underlying wearing uniforms: being able to identify the legitimate combatants. That's why people caught fighting out of uniform are executed as spies. Unless you are fighting by the rules of the Geneva convention, you, whether an American or Brit or a German are committing a war crime. So yes, if Churchill did as he is alleged to have done, and decided to deliberately bomb German Civilians in order to provoke a change in the German attacks which he knew would result in the massacre of his own people, in order to survive the Battle of Britain and hopefully win the war, what he did was morally wrong. However, as I said, it was strategically right, and considering what he was fighting against, as I also said, in this case the ends justify the means. And just for the record, if I was in his shoes, I hope I would have the intestinal fortitude to do the morally wrong but historically correct thing, just like he did. But I bet every time he read the casualty reports, or worse yet, saw the dead bodies of his people killed by the change in German tactics he brought about, he died a little bit inside. I know I would have. But then again, I don't delude myself into believing that I am half the man Churchill was. As I said, I admire him more than any other leader of the last 100 years. If I could have him and FDR cloned and made the leaders of the free world again, I would do so in a hearbeat. And just for the record Brad, I believe FDR and his cousin Theodore were the two greatest American leaders of the 20th Century. We have never had anyone fit to stand in their shoes in my lifetime.
 
Actually does anyone know what the target was in that first raid on Berlin?

I bet it wasn't deliberately aimed at civilains but i couldn't say for certain.
 
Eazy said:
Actually does anyone know what the target was in that first raid on Berlin?

I bet it wasn't deliberately aimed at civilains but i couldn't say for certain.
Click to expand...

Churchill demanded the RAF launch a reprisal raid on Berlin in response to the several previous 'accidental' Luftwaffe raids on London (the RAF did not want to attack Berlin as it was a 600 miles each way journey across well defended enemy territory).

Eighty one twin engined British bombers set off on 25 August 1940. Twenty nine aircraft claimed to have reached their objective (the Germans say ten) and hinded by heavy cloud cover they managed to drop their bombs at random in the target area. Military damage was nil, and was followed up by three more raids within ten days.

It was one of the many tit for tat air raids that occured in the Battle of Britain and was more to boost British moral than anything else. In effect it was a very similar raid to the later 'Doolittle Raid' on Tokyo which was actioned as a reprisal for the bombing of Pearl harbour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid

The damage inflicted in both raids was minimal but the moral boost to the Allies was enormous. In addition the political damage to the German and Japanese civil and military leaders was enormous.

By accident, both raids eventually resulted in 'errors' by Hitler and Japan that were to have long term effects on the war. Hitler ordered major attacks (Blitz) on London (mainly concentrated on industrial areas, such as docks). Which resulted in many civilian dealths, but reduced losses of British aircraft and other military material on the ground.

The Japanese 'error' was to launch operations to sink the US carriers so they could never attack Japan again, yet withhold many fighter aircraft to defend Japan - consequently reducing the availability of Japanese fighters in later Pacific Ocean carrier battles such as 'Coral Sea' and 'Midway'.
 
Last edited:
DMNamiot said:
Hi Guys,

I am not a real big fan of FDR.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm taking this out of context but I'm curious as to why.

Joe,

I think this is a free ranging conversation and we should just let it go where people want to take it. That's the beauty of a thread like this: it's all over the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top