Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:

Barksdale wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I have no sympathy.

At any time the German people could have stood up to Hitler, with the people saying no, the army would say no and the party would have no choice.

I take it you have not done any reading on nazi Germany?

Enough to understand that the German populace was overly compliant. There were murmurs of dissent in the populace and armed forces both, but neither had the bottle to make any move. This is partly due to the psychological nature of the German national character which is overly complaint. Hitler counted on and exploited that, his position was far less secure than it appeared, it was sadly inadequately challenged.

I stand by my words, the German populace had the moral obligation to remove Hitler, they didnt, so they got bombed in the process of removing him.

Obviously not enough.

Moral obligation, and a overly compliant national character? Thats your argument? Ever heard of the Schutzstaffel? Or maybe the Gestapo?

A good place to start reading about the nazi Germany is Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Willian Shirer.

Barksdale wrote:Moral obligation, and a overly compliant national character? Thats your argument?

It was precisely the conclusion a very extensive psychological report, produced just after the war, came to. I don't agree with the conclusions myself but it remains a valid argument.

Ketara wrote:From 1944 onwards, the Allied bombing began to fulfil its main objective, as American bombers joined English ones, and large scale raids took place all over Germany. Indeed, Albert Speer regards 1944 as the period in which the bombing began to have an effect all across the board, 'Up to the year 1944 neither the air attacks nor the defence measures taken to meet them disturbed armaments production....with regard to the year 1944, on the other hand, it may be assumed that on average there was a fall in production amounting to 30/40%, for had it not been for the air attacks, the projected output programme would certainly have been achieved...' The Allies had also steadily increased raids against German oil, and fuel production sites, which resulted in severely incapacitating the German war machine. The Luftwaffe was short of fuel from September 1944 onwards, and the Army suffered serious shortages from December 1944 onwards. Indeed, it was one of the key reasons for the failure of the winter offensive in Dec 1944, as many of the tanks had no fuel to move. There were also shortages of coal from Autumn onwards, although steel production continued to climb. The elimination of transport capability however, meant that even in cases where production might not have been falling, it was increasingly difficult to move resources, and finished products to where they were most urgently needed. This breakdown in the rail network proved decisive to the failure of the Ardennes offensive. The lack of coal distribution also meant that power networks across Germany began to run short of fuel.

1944 is the year that the Reich lost access to the Romanian oil fields completely, not due to bombing but due to Soviet occupation. Albert Speer is an extremely unreliable witness, his post war testimony should be treated with extreme caution.

Speaking of Soviet occupation. Since there war a very real chance that this would be the outcome of a popular uprising against the Nazi state. Being bombed and having minorities and political dissenters removed from society probably don't seem all that bad as an alternative. From a certain point of view...

What was successful, was the champagne to achieve air superiority. The allies were fixated on strategic bombing, which ultimately required air superiority. Achieving air superiority prevented the German army from moving. Not just supplies like fuel, but the ability to mass troops and weapons for deployment. It was open season on war material once the alies owned the sky. I don't think Speer was alone in his lack of objectivity. Look at the loss of life around "big week", if the post war historians said "sorry, your sons died in an air war of attrition" their books would not have sold. Also add in that some of the stratigic bombing was about choosing winners and loosers amongst the industrial elite.....Yes for some, the strategic bombing was very financially successful.

Orlanth wrote:
Do you understand what you are saying. If what you said was true surrender within warfare would be impossible.

No, just difficult. And yeah, surrender is difficult, particularly for individual soldiers that have a well integrated chain of command (read: professional military).

I'm not sure how you got "impossible" from "difficult", the words mean very different things. Lax Orlanth, very lax.

Orlanth wrote:
The UK and France did not vote in Hitler, nor was it their fault the Germans did nothing after subsequent elections were cancelled.

Nice try, but that's a very poor attempt at deflection.

You asked why moral obligation should not be imposed externally, I said that it implies an external stake, or obligation, in the matter. After all, why else are you imposing a set of moral obligations?

You either get to determine what someone else's moral obligation is, and so commit yourself to the same obligation. Or you don't, and your choices were simply your own. Either way, the blood is still on your hands; among those of others.

Orlanth wrote:
Dogma, I know you like to try and argue the opposite of everything I post, but how on earth do you come to the conclusion that Nazism didn't cross actionable moral boundaries. Or worse come to a conclusion that disenfranchises those who say it did.

Well, I don't really like to argue in opposition to you, I just think most of what you say regarding international affairs, philosophy, and religion (among other things) is clearly wrong.

Anyway, I'm as close to being completely amoral as any person you will ever meet, you should know this by now; though I suspect you didn't believe me when I've explicitly said it in the past. The point I'm making is that "moral boundaries" are individually contingent, and that trying to pass the buck to others for violent actions you committed through the concept of dessert is weak, bordering on repugnant.

George Spiggott wrote:

Barksdale wrote:Moral obligation, and a overly compliant national character? Thats your argument?

It was precisely the conclusion a very extensive psychological report, produced just after the war, came to. I don't agree with the conclusions myself but it remains a valid argument.

That argument is just as suspect now as it was then. Any passive student of the history of Germany can tell you this.

George Spiggott wrote: Albert Speer is an extremely unreliable witness, his post war testimony should be treated with extreme caution.

Couldn't agree more.

Orlanth wrote:I have no sympathy.

At any time the German people could have stood up to Hitler, with the people saying no, the army would say no and the party would have no choice.

You missed the point. The question was 'did that help win the war?' and you answered 'they deserved it.'

What they did and didn't deserve means absolutely nothing. What matters is how quickly the bombing helped end the war, and whether it was worth the vast resources we invested in factory hours and soldier's lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I'd have to go dig it up, but a highly decorated Luftwaffe fighter pilot essentially said that if they had Me262s earlier in the war Germany would have been unstoppable. By the time they began producing their really impressive weapons, they simply lacked the men to use them. Not simply trained men, but any men at all. They were using boys as young as 14-15 by the end of the war and SS recruiting standards were thrown out the door.

Well yeah, but fighter pilots always claim that if their side had an even more awesome fighter plane then the whole military effort would be totally different. Everyone always thinks their specific field of military specialisation is the most important. Everyone always thinks that a higher performing weapons platform is more important than higher numbers.

But it was a war of industry, not of the specific quality of weapons platforms. What mattered was replacing losses, and maintaing sufficient logistics that you can mount offensives as often as possible. The Germans had wonderful weapons of war, before and after the Me262. But they couldn't replace losses, and they couldn't maintain logistics. And so they lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It was important to make them know what they had inflicted on others if nothing else.

With the Soviets advancing on all fronts on the East, the Germans reaping what they sowed was kind of inevitable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:What was successful, was the champagne to achieve air superiority.

Posted from an i-phone?

And a good point, by the way. Battle of the Bulge says a lot about the inability to launch an air-offensive when the other side has complete air superiority.

There are other moments and objectives behind the allied bombing campaigns.

For example the Dresden fire bombing was an attempt to demoralize the German people but served more as a catalyst that caused the German people to view the allies as monsters and aided the Nazi party propaganda wise.

There is a book called "Liberator Bomber" that talks about something that a lot of people learn. Allied bombers were not always used to destroy targets in their bombing campaigns, but were actually used to draw out Luftwaffe fighters so that the Allied fighter escorts could take them out of the fight. In fact the US Army Air Corp used their bombers as the main components of the campaign as much as they used them as targets. An example of this is Big Week, which was a massive bombing campaign the Allied forces carried out. In 1944, the Allied bombers( used to bomb targets and to act as bait) had crippled the Luftwaffe to the point that the Normandy invasion could be carried out.

Another story, not sure if its true or not, is that the Allies began using their P-51's to strafe enemy ground forces and transport systems because younger pilots wanted to do more besides fly escort for bombers. Even if this isn't true, P-51s and some other fighter planes were used to carry out ground attack missions.

A further point to consider is the desperation that was forced upon the Nazi scientists near the end of the war because of their greatly reduced production capabilities, their "throw-away" fighter programs were kind of atrocious in their basic concepts. I'm sorry, but when you design a jet fighter and place the engine above and behind the cockpit and rush it so that it was produced only 90 days after the concept first came up, you're pretty desperate.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I have no sympathy.

At any time the German people could have stood up to Hitler, with the people saying no, the army would say no and the party would have no choice.

You missed the point. The question was 'did that help win the war?' and you answered 'they deserved it.'

What they did and didn't deserve means absolutely nothing. What matters is how quickly the bombing helped end the war, and whether it was worth the vast resources we invested in factory hours and soldier's lives.

No harm in talking about an auxiliary point connected to the main point, its not even off the topic. You should be used to this if you post on the internet.

The morality of strategic bombing is connected to and relevant to the issue of its effectiveness. This is why we have laws to govern war, and those laws are subject to change. Strategic bombing is now illegal after all.

The question of whether Germany should have been bombed can and is looked at morally as well as militarily, indeed the two are connected. Air Chief Marshall Harris was under no illusions that if the UK lost the war he would be tried as a war criminal. Victors justice dictates such, was he though? I dont think so, strategic bombing was morally justifiable under the circumstances of the fight against Hitler.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barksdale wrote:
Moral obligation, and a overly compliant national character? Thats your argument? Ever heard of the Schutzstaffel? Or maybe the Gestapo?

Thats their problem it got that far. Also a revolutionary catalyst overcoming the resources of a secret police organisation is not far fetched and has historical example. Also the Gestapo were Germans too, enough of them should have realised that the Feurer wasn't all he was spun up to be and that Germany wasn't benefiting from his rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:There are other moments and objectives behind the allied bombing campaigns.
For example the Dresden fire bombing was an attempt to demoralize the German people but served more as a catalyst that caused the German people to view the allies as monsters and aided the Nazi party propaganda wise.

Dresden was a critical hit on a large scale. Bomber raids of the scale of Dresden normally suffered a low accuracy rate due to flak, weather and previous damage. Dresden was an untouched city and on the night of the raid was foubnd in near perfect visibility, there was little wind so bombs were dropped accurately and a firestorm could develop,, the Pathfinders dropped the loads on target and all the bomber squadrons also found their target. WW2 strategic bombing included a lot of redundancy because of the inaccuracy of bombing, so when a large formation all gets its loads on target the results were devastating. Dresden also suffered because it had previously been unbombed so the flamables in building structures that had been largely consumed elsewhere were all intact, this resulted in a major firestorm.

halonachos wrote:
There is a book called "Liberator Bomber" that talks about something that a lot of people learn. Allied bombers were not always used to destroy targets in their bombing campaigns, but were actually used to draw out Luftwaffe fighters so that the Allied fighter escorts could take them out of the fight. In fact the US Army Air Corp used their bombers as the main components of the campaign as much as they used them as targets. An example of this is Big Week, which was a massive bombing campaign the Allied forces carried out. In 1944, the Allied bombers( used to bomb targets and to act as bait) had crippled the Luftwaffe to the point that the Normandy invasion could be carried out.

One of the effects of the US conducting daylight bombing. It drew the sting of the Luftwaffe.

halonachos wrote:
Another story, not sure if its true or not, is that the Allies began using their P-51's to strafe enemy ground forces and transport systems because younger pilots wanted to do more besides fly escort for bombers. Even if this isn't true, P-51s and some other fighter planes were used to carry out ground attack missions.

A side effect of the Mustangs range, escort on the way in strafe on the way back. Priority targets were air defence infrastructure, which figures really.

halonachos wrote:
A further point to consider is the desperation that was forced upon the Nazi scientists near the end of the war because of their greatly reduced production capabilities, their "throw-away" fighter programs were kind of atrocious in their basic concepts. I'm sorry, but when you design a jet fighter and place the engine above and behind the cockpit and rush it so that it was produced only 90 days after the concept first came up, you're pretty desperate.

Hitler and others promised Wunderwaffe to win the war, to their credit they gave a lot of science free reign. Sometimes with regards to aircraft design and rocketry this did a lot to benefit mankind longterm. The free reign the Nazis gave their rocket scientists out of desperation laid the scientific foundation for the US and Soviet space programs.

Frazzled wrote:Thats the problem with wonder weapons, they take too long.

From what I've read, the Germans could have had the 262 in 1942, but erhard milch really disliked Willy Messerschmitt and so fought the procurement of the 262. and/or/also the german high command thought the war would be over quickly, and so producing a weapon that wouldn't be available until '42 was pointless. <facepalm> Luckily for us.

I don't know much about the Allied Bombing campaign but I do seem to remember something about Milch getting into personal squabbles with Messerschmitt from a book about Luftwaffe R&D.