Warbird Information Exchange

I just thought of something to get the revisionists going. If the Germans didn't send up the flak and fighters, then our bombers would of been more precise and therefore fewer citizens would be bombed.

Boy am I worried that I might be understanding how the truth can be twisted if we don't keep an eye out.
[/quote]

At the risk of over-simplification, the military has one basic purpose..."To kill people and break things.". If the German and Japanese leaders didn't want their people to die, they should've stayed home.

Mudge the militant

ps. Just a bit nit picky but...the historian who wrote this “One is free to try and explain why...." didn't study his grammar too well. You don't TRY AND you TRY TO.
Sorry...Us English majors can't help it.

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Being new to this forum and a novice historian, I won't pretend to understand the full depth of this as there can be point and counter-point made until the cows come home. However, my view (based on my understanding of history) is that those men (RAF, RCAF, USAAF, et al) did their jobs to the best of their abilities and understanding of the situation. It is WAY too easy to come back decades later and try to "Monday-morning-quarterback" that war (or any other for that matter). I don't believe in specifically targetting civilians and certainly don't like the thought of women and children being caught up in it--but we were at war. War is, by its very nature, a terrible--but sometimes necessary--aspect of human nature. I have lived in Japan and walked around through some of the same areas that we fire bombed during WW2 and talked to people there. Many I spoke too had a similar attitude as that of the German secretary mentioned earlier--it was their price to pay. (On the other side of that, however, is the "national amnesia" a lot of the Japanese seem to have. Many--especially the young--either have no idea of the truth or have a very skewed idea and false opinions of it. This is all due to historical revision. I knew a young lady there who actually wanted to argue with me the fact that NONE of the Japanese atrocities EVER occurred! She honestly believed that it was purely propaganda put out by the US. She wouldn't believe me until I showed her pictures of places like Nanking, Shanghai, Bataan, or the summary executions. Her teachings in school only covered Pearl Harbor and the A-bombs! That's apparently all they teach their kids there!! This is why it is SO important to not revise history. If we forget history we are bound to repeat it.) I have also walked through Allied military cemeteries in Thailand and other former battle fields. These were enlightening to say the least. The Japanese didn't seem too concerned about the civilians in Hong Kong, Nanking, or Shanghai when it was THEIR planes dropping bombs. What about the summary executions of soldiers AND CIVILIANS? Even though I lived over there and had many friends there, I have a difficult time feeling sorry for them. Militarism was their way of life and what happened was (in my opinion) the only way to stop the carnage which they started. IIRC, Gen. Robert E. Lee was once quoted as saying, "It is a good thing that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it." Another famous quote; "War is Hell!" --Gen. Sherman.

My preference would be for folks to present history as it actually happened--good, bad or otherwise and let the chips fall where they may. There was good and bad on all sides--not just one or another. Educate people with the facts and let them draw their own conclusions instead of turning factual history into a political pulpit. Armed with the facts, people can debate all they want--oh yeah, that's because why?--because people fought to win and won for freedom! The very freedom these after-the-fact brain trusts use to spew their self-serving, revisionist nonsense. I hate like Hell that innocents were killed--I wouldn't want it to happen here--but the fact is that it did happen and it cannot be changed. It is a horrible aspect of war. Maybe there can be lessons learned from it--without political grandstanding and revision. Present the whole story as it really happened and let it be...

Personally, I thank EVERY vet who has fought for the freedoms I enjoy. Like "Mudge" stated above, "Land of the free because of the brave". Any questions?

My .02 cents worth...

Is the deliberate bombing of civilian targets a war crime? Is the incineration of people in hospitals, schools, homes and playgrounds a war crime?

Of course it is.

Now.

But in WWII?

How could you call any German a "civilian", when it was the most heavily militarised country in the world, with almost everybody involved in the war effort in some way or another? When the schoolkids were flak gunners and fire wardens, and the doctors and nurses helped return soldiers to the front?

The concept of total war is one that passes many by these days - especially those that live in places disconnected from the effects of that war. Within half an hour's drive I can visit something like 10 bomber airfields, most returning to nature slowly but surely. Another half hour's drive and I can visit the graves of nearly four thousand American soldiers, sailors and airmen.

In any big city in Europe, WWII's effects have long since been covered over - ironically with the exception of Berlin, studded by massive concrete shelters and flak towers. And in the cities and towns beyond Europe, there is no trace of the destruction caused by WWII beyond the occasional war memorial listing the names of a few local sons that never came home. It's unsurprising therefore that plaques such as the one in question are created - by today's standards, the plaque is entirely accurate. But it ignores the fact that at the time the raids were being carried out they were a necessary evil.

The bit about German production not being degraded very much is, however, poorly researched and there's a much bigger picture to look at there.

_________________
Awfully nice aeroplane piccies available

This uproar is silly and embarassing. A man who can't look what he did during war in the face and appraise it honestly won't make it very high in my estimation.
We did indeed target civilians. And it was indeed morally objectinable. It was also deemed miltarily necessary, thus allowing briefers to describe their targets to Sam as a military target. If I was assigning targets, I would have done the same. If I was a bombardier I would have dropped on civilians, with the regret filled drive of someone who knows it is necessary.
In the end the bombing of German civilians didn't have much value. Not as much as our destruction of oil production and transportation centers. We wasted skilled crews, expensive aircraft, and time killing women and children in the vain hope that it would end the war faster. It didn't, but how can you know a strategy won't work without trying it?

It was indeed morally objectionable and of little value, and in general a sad thing. But we should NEVER apologize for it, or attempt to hide or change the reasons we did it. That only strengthens those who would condemn us for what we did, when they should be thanking us.

I shot at civilians once or wtice. I didn't like it. It was morally repugnant and possibly illegal. I would do it again because the livees of my men were on the table. Necessary doesn't mean good. Just necessary.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

WAR IS HELL

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Churchill said this in '45 after the bombing of Dresden. What makes it more clear

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Agreed, he did say it - a few days after he ordered the bombing of Dresden.

Like most people I think, I'm a huge admirer of Churchill but the way he and others in the hierarchy blamed Sir Arthur Harris for the raid when he was told to do it is shameful.

With our benefit of hindsight it's probably reasonable to say that Dresden shouldn't have been targeted but at that time the powers that be didn't have that luxury.

We fought back, especially to start with, in the only way we could. Bomber Command was the only offensive weapon we had.

There were plenty of reasons driving the bombing. That it was morally objectional and of marginal effect doesn't change those reasons. We should include the full picture in any historical description, not revise it. We should neither hide nor revise in any way what we did, nor the reasons we did it-which are completely valid.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Actually, any of the above are indirectly considered legitimate targets, according to the laws of land warfare. The whole thing hinges on the definitions of Article 25 HR.

I've included a small part of FM27-10 which covers the laws of land warfare. Read carefully as the section 40a appears to prohibit the bombing of population centers but is then followed up by loose wording which essentially says "except for here" in subsections 40b and 40c.



40. Permissible Objects of Attack of Bombardment
a. Attacks Against the Civilian Population as Such Prohibited. Customary international law prohibits the launching of attacks (including bombardment) against either the civilian population as such or individual civilians as such.
b. Defended Places. Defended places, which are outside the scope of the proscription of Article 25, HR, are permissible objects of attack (including bombardment). In this context, defended places include--

(1) A fort or fortified place.
(2) A place that is occupied by a combatant military force or through which such a force is passing. The occupation of a place by medical units alone, however, is not sufficient to render it a permissible object of attack.
(3) A city or town surrounded by detached defense positions, if under the circumstances the city or town can be considered jointly with such defense positions as an indivisible whole.

c. Military Objectives. Military objectives--i.e., combatants, and those objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage--are permissible objects of attack (including bombardment). Military objectives include, for example, factories producing munitions and military supplies, military camps, warehouses storing munitions and military supplies, ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military supplies, and other places that are for the accommodation of troops or the support of military operations. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 25, HR, however, cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which may be classified as military objectives, but which are undefended (para 39b), are not permissible objects of attack.



This is the modern/updated version of this document and it still meets the criteria for determining Dresden to be a valid target. Both sections 40a(2) and 40a(3) were in effect and therefore met the criteria for an area attack on the city.

I'm neither condoning nor condemning the actions taken by RAF and USAAF with regards to Dresden. I'm merely pointing out that the attack still meets the burden of proof to be designated a target.

These same loopholes/loose definitions exist today. When flying AH-64s, I could not legally engage enemy personnel with a 30mm cannon. However, enemy equipment was fair game. The definition of equipment includes such things as tanks, artillery, trucks, etc. It also includes more mundane things such as helmets, belt buckles and webbing. So, if I was to target a group of soldiers, it would be a war crime. If I was engaging enemy equipment (in the form of rifles, webgear, and belt buckles), I was engaging legitimate targets.

The bottom line is that war is very ugly business and short of Nukes/Bio/Chemical weapons there really aren't that many restrictions on what you can and can't do.

All governments of the day knew this and knowingly signed off on the bombing campaigns. Oh we can get all self-righteous when looking back in hindsight but, as I stated in my earlier post, one needs to look at these events in the context of the day.

Remember, in WW1 the generals thought infantry attacks with waves of men against machine good was sound military strategy. The Imperial Japanese Army also considered this acceptable, as did the Chinese in Korea, etc

Today, we look back scratching our heads wondering what these guys were thinking. Why didn't they see it that way at the time?

I know everybody is entititled to an opinion, but not to create their own facts. Therefore I repeat that all missions, bar none, were briefed for a military or industrial target with specified latitude and longitude, nearby landmarks (roads, rivers, bridges, railways, etc.) along with the target's function and importance. I need not repeat that many of these targets were erected in areas adjacent to civlian housing, schools, hospitals, etc., and were thus subject to severe collateral damage. The concept of pinpoint bombing achieved at 5000 feet on a calm clear day over Arizona, was much less attainable from 25000 feet over German flak filled skies, often through heavy cloud coverage and varying wind.conditions.
The Royal Air Force bombed at night and were thus forced into carpet bombing of German cities, but no mission of the 8th Air Force was directed at anything but military or industrial targets. NEVER.
Furthermore, if you as a bombardier dropped on civilians rather than the briefed target, you would be facing one hell of a court-martial.

_________________
b17sam
35 B17 missions (9/6/44 Ludwigshafen to 2/3/45 Berlin)
click on http://www.b17sam.com

Right idea, but it actually started as soon as the Germans could figure out how to haul a bomb to London.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... ng/AP3.htm

During the war, the Germans used zeppelins as bombers. On May 31, 1915, the LZ-38 was the first zeppelin to bomb London, and other bombing raids on London and Paris followed. The airships could approach their targets silently and fly at altitudes above the range of British and French fighters. However, they never became effective offensive weapons. New planes with more powerful engines that could climb higher were built, and the British and French planes also began to carry ammunition that contained phosphorus, which would set the hydrogen-filled zeppelins afire. Several zeppelins were also lost because of bad weather, and 17 were shot down because they could not climb as fast as the fighters. The crews also suffered from cold and oxygen deprivation when they climbed above 10,000 feet (3,048 meters).

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

I say this with the greatest of respect but there is a huge difference between what's being briefed to aircrews and the effects on the ground at the target.

Were all targets briefed as military and/or industrial targets? Almost assuredly yes. I'm sure it was all exactly as Sam describes.

That being said, the USAAF did pursue area bombing although not under that name (especially in the Pacific). The facts supporting the statement are pretty straightforward:
- Toggliers were introduced into bomber crews to replace the bombardiers. For those unfamiliar, the Togglier was an enlisted crewman who received basic training on bombing but whose primary role was to toggle (release) the bombs when he saw bombs coming from the aircraft in front of him. There was no aiming involved, no target verification involved. It was a simple process. When you see bombs falling from other bombers, drop yours.

- As mentioned, the European weather was typically terrible. USAAF, just like the RAF, used radar for blind bombing through overcast. The RAF used a system called H2S (coded Home Sweet Home) and the USAAF used a similar system called H2X (coded Mickey).

Neither of the above methods was likely to result in a precision strike and the resultant bomb patterns and bomb line creepback were little different from that of the RAF.

As I said in an earlier posting, the crews did a superb job in carrying out what was asked of them.

As for the Germans and Japanese, they brought these raids onto themselves and neither deserve apologies from us.

Just my simple opinion, if Allies target civilians soley to terrorize them, its not very moral. If there is an idustrial or military site then it is within the bounds of war. It is a thin line. Let's say Germany or Japan had bombed US aircraft factories. Many of the casualties would have been the civilian women working in them. Same with most targets. We are focussing this discussion on the morality; but the second part is the effectiveness. Sort of opposite the plaque, the Edwin Hoyt book "Angels of Death" about the Luftwaffe says by 1942 German aircraft production and crew training was falling and not keeping up with losses. Whether this is from the bombing or other factors is not laid out in this book in detail.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

It's very easy to "Monday morning quarterback" war when all the facts are known. It's much different when you are in the time as it is happening. It is impossible to try and make sense of the business of killing other human beings. It is even more impossible to try and make sense of it if you weren't there.