|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(1 of 38)
Dec 10, 2005 8:26 AM
|
|
the allies absolutely had the right to bomb the entire city of Berlin. As they say "war is hell". Remember the Germans bombed London and if they could have they would have bombed cities in the USA.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(2 of 38)
Dec 10, 2005 10:18 AM
|
|
Why would this even be discussed? War is hell and we gave the Germans exactly what they gave their enemies. If we gave North Vietnam the same thing, The war would have ended much sooner. If you go to war TOTAL WAR is how you win.
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(3 of 38)
Dec 10, 2005 10:20 AM
|
You only seem to have one answer to the question.
Yes, the allies had the right. Was it "right" though? Depends on the definition. You could say no, because it was basically terrorism (pound the civilian morale until they give up. . . . they even referred to many such raids as terror bombing. We now act as if terrorism = evil, because a great many people currently using the tactic are by any rational measure, evil. But terrorism is in fact a tactic. Modern terrorism is different in method obviously, but the fundamental tactic and strategic goal is similar).
However, at the time, a great many military airpower theorists firmly believed that airpower alone could end a war and minimize the casualties sufferred by all. There was little analytical information on either side, but there was some anecdotal evidence to support the theory. In World War I the Germans bombed London, and created a massive hysterical response by the population and politically. The airpower theorists based their ideas on extrapolations from incidents like these.
In hindsight, this theory was bunk, of course, as airpower did not have this effect once people got used to it. Initially it was a shock, but people go on the best they can.
Hence, I vote no. Not because they (the Germans) didn't deserve pretty much whatever happened to them, but because it wasted allied lives and allied combat power, and thus lengthened the war and the time the Nazis had to perpetuate their evil. If we didn't concentrate our air resources and aircraft development and manufacturing so exclusively on the bombing campaign, we could have:
1. added 100 heavy bombers to the atlantic campaign stomping the U-Boats much, much earlier,
2. developed close air support communications and tactics methods to have severely reduced the casualties on DDay and during previous and subsequent campaigns,
3. developed long range fighters sooner, to achieve the same result actually achieved by the bombing campaign (burning up all German air resources, and crushing the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe), while suffering many fewer allied aircrew lives.
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(4 of 38)
Dec 10, 2005 3:21 PM
|
|
What a naive question. This was WW2. In WAR, the object is to survive. Not only was it proper to bomb Berlin it was imperative. What is not proper is trying to revise history and attempt to place guilt on our brave parents that lived and fought for our freedom during that time.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(5 of 38)
Dec 10, 2005 3:25 PM
|
|
As any real accuracy was not really possible (no smart bombs) , the only choice was "do we Bomb or do we turn the other cheek?" Germany didn't hesitate to bomb English , French or Dutch cities , or even Spanish in a previous war. To expect the British not to retaliate would be hard to imagine. Americans , who bombed by daylight and suffered massive casualties as result , did endeavor not to bomb civilians by using "precision bombing". And Berlin was the center of government. It would have been hard to bomb anywhere in the city that didn't contain some government function. Imagine bombing down town Washington DC and not hitting civilian buildings or people.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(6 of 38)
Dec 10, 2005 4:06 PM
|
Who is it that is trying to re-write history...and why? What is your agenda?
I realize that it is popular to make the United States and its allies the villains!! But going back 60 years, and forgetting everything that Hitler did (and all of the German people who let him do it) is reaching for the stars.
Extermination of his capability to lead and make war was the goal. Remember where Hitler was--in a hole in the ground--under Berlin.
From a real "history channel"
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(7 of 38)
Dec 12, 2005 7:15 AM
|
|
Equal justice for equal war crimes, the Allies were not justified in any way holding a civilian population responsible for Hitler's leadership. The brutal fire bombing of Dresden was a war crime. Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler are equally responsible for the death of millions. The Russian army raped 2 million women and all Stalin had to say about it was, "What's wrong with a soldier having a little bit of fun." WWII, the total war of total hypocrisy, rape is a crime under any circumstances and mass rape is never justifiable. Roosevelt could have avoided bombing a civilian population had he simply been more reasonable and helped the German resistance overthrow Hitler, he could be allies with Stalin, (who was 10 times worse than Hitler), but he ignored the German resistance. I hope he's sharing an equal seat in hell right next to Hitler and Stalin.
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(8 of 38)
Dec 12, 2005 9:27 AM
|
> The
> brutal fire bombing of Dresden was a war crime.
> Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler are equally
> y responsible for the death of millions. The Russian
> army raped 2 million women and all Stalin had to say
> about it was, "What's wrong with a soldier having a
> little bit of fun." WWII, the total war of total
> hypocrisy, rape is a crime under any circumstances
> and mass rape is never justifiable. Roosevelt could
> have avoided bombing a civilian population had he
> simply been more reasonable and helped the German
> resistance overthrow Hitler, he could be allies with
> Stalin, (who was 10 times worse than Hitler), but he
> ignored the German resistance. I hope he's sharing
> an equal seat in hell right next to Hitler and Stalin.
I'm sorry, where do you get the "Stalin was 10 times worse than Hitler" bunk? I mean I realize during the Cold War it was popular to say such things, but on what basis is this analysis made?
As far as Roosevelt and Churchill being war criminals because of Dresden... that's just Garbage. As I said before there was a major movement towards using airpower as a means to win a war quickly. Yes, it was bunk, but that doesn't mean they didn't honestly think it would. The USAAF's "precision bombing" was sold as such, but was in fact not even close to as precise as they portrayed at the time. (bombs missed by anywhere from hundreds of yards to miles.... not exactly hitting a pickle barrel) The politicians and even the generals did in fact believe many of the claims for the most part. Montgomery thought bombing would take the place of a large shore bombardment on DDay. It didn't, and thousands died on Omaha beach.
And yeah, the German people should have been, and were held responsible for the actions of Hitler and the German military. While I don't condone Rape, and think Stalin was a montrous dirtbag, it's a bit silly to expect the Russians who sufferred absurd atrocities under the boot of the germans to have spared the germans when they finally were able to throw the aggressors back. They beat the germans mostly single-handedly, after suffering many millions of casualties, many if not most of whom were civilians. After the initial excesses once they burst into germany, the Red Army did in fact issue a proclamation requiring atrocities to stop.
Oh yeah, and the Germans did elect Hitler's party to power, and did not have much in the way of resistance (not that any resistance would have had a shot to succeed against that regime). So the idea that we could have simply supported the resistance is ridiculous.
We needed to beat them militarily, and although I think the resources wasted o bombing would have been better used elsewhere, bombing was thought of as a way to win with relatively few casualties.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
Registered:
1/12/04
|
|
(9 of 38)
Dec 15, 2005 5:32 PM
|
While it will probably be looked upon as coming from an unusual perspective, I feel that in order to ask the question correctly about bombing of civilian cities, one has to look at the whole picture, and bring up items not always discussed.
I recently read Edwin Black's "IBM and the Holocaust." Black, who lost his Jewish parents in a Polish concentration camp, reveals how IBM helped Nazi Germany round up its Jewish population (and knowing -- the entire time -- that this is what their computing and collating machines were being used for), as well as providing them with machines that helped them in their military manufacturing processes.
So, one might put the question differently: "Would it have been better had America stopped IBM's (and other corporate miscreants') contact and trade with Nazi Germany, rather than choosing instead to bomb civilian areas?"
While IBM is the main focus of Black's book, other corporate giants also surface. Here is a brief excerpt regarding two of Hilter's associates, Wilheim Keppler, Hitler's personal economic advisor, and Keppler's personal secretary, Edmund Veesenmayer (from page 254):
"Keppler was not only Hitler's personal economic advisor, he was also Germany's main nexus to American business. Dubbed 'a Kodak man' by U. S. military intelligence reports for his links to the Eastman Kodak film company, Keppler owed much to the Kodak Company. . . Once Hilter came to power, Keppler advised a number of American companies on terminating their Jewish employees. He maintained good relations with executives connected to such companies as International Telephone and Telegraph and National Cash Register, and was Hitler's intermediary to such commerical giants as General Motors.
"Laregly through his Keppler connections, Veesenmayer eventually joined the board of directors of the German subsidiaries of International Telephone and Telegraph and Standard Oil."
Not surprisingly, it is also the big multinationals, such as Eastman Kodak, who happily traded with Saddam Hussein, even during the economic embargo period.
Thus, to really ask the question in its right context, I think one should follow the money trail.
As another one of the History Channel's programs has revealed, it was not only Swiss banks that were happy to do business with Nazi Germany, but also Chase Bank of France, Barclay's bank, and the Bank of England, among others.
Likewise, yet another History Channel program has dealt with the post-war "rat-lines," where Nazi war criminals were able to escape justice and flee to South America with help from, among others, the CIA and some high-up members of the Catholic church.
The fact that so many were amoral in their aid to the Nazis makes the guilt spread further and further from just Nazi Germany proper, and even (to some degree) implicate the governments of the Allies themselves in some ways, and to some degree. The collusion of large industrial giants with Germany increased the body count of our own soldiers, as well as the millionsof victims of the holocaust, and even to German civilians as well, by prolonging and intensifying the war.
Evil is evil, no matter which "side" or "sides" are doing it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/15/05
|
|
(10 of 38)
Dec 15, 2005 6:36 PM
|
|
To decide the rightness or wrongness of the bombing of Berlin, you have to consider objective, or, perhaps motive. Yes, was there a motive? Consider that twice England had been beaten on hard by a foe immensely more talented (could England ever have beaten the Germans on her own? I rest my case as to German superiority). The 2nd war was too close for comfort for the English. In Churchill's mind there was not going to be a third try. He was going to make sure this german nation was never, ever going to be in a position to challenge English superiority again. By the way, what is that saying about the sun never setting on the german empire, or is it the Japanese empire. Oh, I remember, its the "sun never sets on the british empire." My, my, sounds like someone had been very busy collecting colonies and such. Oh, all came quite willing I'm sure. Anyway, to continue, let me offer that the idea of the annihilation of the german people was not without its temptation. Alas! no a-bomb was at hand. A pity I'm sure. Now don't be put off by morality when it stands in the way of expediency. After all, Churchill was already thinking about war with the russians in the same way that Elizabeth toyed with victorian europe. Remember, the victor always decides history (no fear of blame, right?).While we are on the subject, does anyone know (or care) where Germany was putting all of their dead during that awful period?
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(11 of 38)
Dec 18, 2005 6:13 AM
|
> To decide the rightness or wrongness of the bombing
> of Berlin, you have to consider objective, or,
> perhaps motive. Yes, was there a motive? Consider
> that twice England had been beaten on hard by a foe
> immensely more talented (could England ever have
> beaten the Germans on her own? I rest my case as to
> German superiority). The 2nd war was too close for
> comfort for the English. In Churchill's mind there
> was not going to be a third try. He was going to make
> sure this german nation was never, ever going to be
> in a position to challenge English superiority again.
> By the way, what is that saying about the sun never
> setting on the german empire, or is it the Japanese
> empire. Oh, I remember, its the "sun never sets on
> the british empire." My, my, sounds like someone had
> been very busy collecting colonies and such. Oh, all
> came quite willing I'm sure. Anyway, to continue, let
> me offer that the idea of the annihilation of the
> german people was not without its temptation. Alas!
> no a-bomb was at hand. A pity I'm sure. Now don't be
> put off by morality when it stands in the way of
> expediency. After all, Churchill was already thinking
> about war with the russians in the same way that
> Elizabeth toyed with victorian europe. Remember, the
> victor always decides history (no fear of blame,
> right?).While we are on the subject, does anyone know
> (or care) where Germany was putting all of their dead
> during that awful period?
OK, first can I recommend paragraphs? Sorry, it's just that this was a bit tough to read.
1. When exactly was Britain "beaten twice by an immensely more talented foe"?
- a. While Britain would have had a very tough time facing Germany on their own, it's also true that Germany failed to beat Britain on their own, so the "superiority" argument depends on a lot of variables not addressed.
- b. Britain actually made far better use of their industry and production, as well as that of their empire than the Germans. Outproduced them through much/most of the war.
2. Are you comparing the slow methodical centuries long effort to obtain the colonies that became the British Empire? (generally allowing the locals to retain their independence to a much greater extent than the Germans ever did, which of course was how the geographical extent of the empire was possible)
3. I don't know what the "Elizabeth toying with Victorian Europe" is saying or asking, so I can't comment. Sorry.
4. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that Churchill or any of the allied leaders were advocating genodcide vs. the Germans, or that this policy was being implemented by the bombing campaign. Um no. The bombing campaign was intended to
- a. crush the german ability to make war, and/or
- b. crush the german willingness to make war.
That's it.
5. German dead? the entire war was an awful holocaust, largely created by the germans. Yeah, disgusting, terrible, etc. But no, I don't care where they put their dead. Probably should have thought of that when they elected the nazis.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
3/18/06
|
|
(12 of 38)
Mar 18, 2006 2:42 AM
|
|
It ought never be forgotten that the British were the first to bomb German cities and other civilian targets in Germany. Read on:
"Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler had would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones." This quote is from Mr. J. M. Speight, CBE, who was Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry in 1940, and is written in his book The Splendid Decision about the British decision to start the terror bombing of German civilian targets.
It was the British and NOT the Germans that started bombing cities: it was an act of sheer spite, particularly after the British army had been defeated in France and driven off continental Europe by the Wehrmacht. The terror bombing of German cities was an immense atrocity, and an unindicted and unprosectued war crime because the Germans only got victors' justice and not real justice. Refugee columns of fleeing German refugees, overwhelmingly composed of the elderly, women, and children, were also strafed by Allied tactical air force fighter-bombers in 1944/45. No the Allies were not right to bomb Berlin or any other German city. They most certainly could have defeated Nazi Germany without deliberately inflicting hundreds of thousands civilian deaths and ignoring basic morality.
|
|
|
Posts:
42
Registered:
12/10/05
|
|
(13 of 38)
Mar 19, 2006 2:44 PM
|
Interesting theory. I am not sure (and find it quite unlikely) that the brits were the first to bomb cities in World War II, though I suppose it depends on the definition of WWII. The Japanese bombed cities regularly in China long before the European war started. Then of course the Luftwaffe was more of a tactical air force than a strategic air force, and this was one of the pillars of their tactical system. However, strategic air power was a theory that was everywhere before WWII. The foundation of this was the experience of british cities being bombed in WWI.
IMHO, the german idea was basically a better one in terms of the use of air power at the time. However, it also meant that once they got to the point where the only way they could reach the brits was by bombers, they were extremely ill-equipped and the brits stomped them.
In terms of the moral implications, I personally dislike the targetting of civilians in war, but between the wars, every country was looking for ways to prevent another horrendous disaster like WWI, and the theory behind strategic bombing was to SHORTEN a future war, thus, ultimately, save lives. Didn't work out that way, but I certainly hesitate to suggest it was a war crime.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,148
From:
Toledo, Ohio, USA/Menashe
Registered:
1/8/06
|
|
(14 of 38)
Mar 19, 2006 4:36 PM
|
Berlin should have been bombed to oblivion to set an example for the Assyrian-Germans to never forget.
Visit Beyond Babylon blog!
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
3/18/06
|
|
(15 of 38)
Apr 22, 2006 8:23 AM
|
|
The British initiating the bombing of civilian targets in World War II is certainly no theory when one of their senior wartime Air-Ministry civil servants, ie Speight, openly admits that the RAF embarked on this phase of the war before the Luftwaffe. Anyone who can't imagine the British starting this barbaric phase of warfare in WWII either cannot know the Brits very well or is simply a nationalist apologist for British barbarism.
|
|
|
|
|
