OT:splendid WWII movie you'll never see:( [Archive]

Thermodyne

February 14th, 2004, 01:20 AM

Marketing is why you prolly wont see it in the states.

BUT.....This is a issue that can be debated at length. So I will toss the first stone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Every story has two sides. The point should be made that the Americans and British did not want the convoy to sail until early winter. The route was well covered by land based air and there were significant German navel units in the area. In 1942, the British were very short of convoy escort units and needed them to protect their own life lines. The Soviets forced the issue and the convoy sailed. A side note here that is ignored by history is how close the USSR came to making a separate peace with Germany.

The convoy was originally escorted by the carriers HMS Victorious and USS Washington. But these could not be risked past the North Cape because of German air power. The escort which had four destroyers and 10 corvettes (armed trawlers) and five detached cruisers. The cruisers were not the big gun variety, but small fast sub hunters. When the Tripitz and Prinz Eugen sailed along with about 10 destroyers, the British ships were forced to flee. Common tactical practicality dictated this action. Then the Germans flew more than 200 sorties against the convoy also attacking with 4 U boats.

The blame here lies with the Soviet government. They demanded that the convoy sail against the advice of their allies, and the blame falls squarely upon their mismanagement of the Soviet military and conduct of the war.

PQ 18 was held until fall and was escorted by (IIRC) 50+ ships. Losses were also bad, 13 ships were sunk. PQ 19 sailed in December, when weather and season were poor for air operations, and had light losses. Had the Soviets not insisted on the sailing, PQ 17 would have been held until late November or early December.

To have asked escort ships to engage a battle wagon in the company of a very heavy cruiser is madness. To ask that the sacrifice be made in the absence of a specific immediate tactical need is stupid. Add in a 2+ to 1 superiority in destroyers, and you have to ask why the convoy ever sailed in the long days of summer. Had no bombs ever found their mark, the German surface units would have brushed aside the escorts and decimated the convoy.

This issue surfaces every decade or so, and has even been the basis of court actions. But the facts remain the same. The convoy should have never sailed. And a country the size of the USSR should have never been in the position of having to rely on imported material to stop the Germans. This is just one more example of how badly soviet communism failed to serve the Soviet people. And trying to lay the blame on the British is just more rewriting of history, which is nothing new for the Soviets.

Atrocities

February 14th, 2004, 01:32 AM

If hollywood can't make a buck off it, it don't get no hollywood play.

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by aiken:
I think it will be a second screening of Valentin Pikul's book. First one was "Bayazet" and it was awfull. Hope this attempt will be better.
Yes, it is a screening of Pikul' book. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif So I have a reservation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif - for non-russinas here, Pikul, IMHO is a cheap bestsellerist (hmm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) who can bloody ruin any historic event - but he is a popular in russia as Crighton (sp., sorry) in US.

Now, PQ-17 was a trully important WWII event, it could balance WWII one way or another and I would be realy sorry to see "Convoy PQ-17" follow Pikul' storyline.

It was an epic story of Heroism, Sacrifice, Cowardice and Betrail - two later terms go directly to Admiralty, sailors and officers of HM ships would fullfil their duty and save PQ-17. If only Lords have been so cowardly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

February 14th, 2004, 01:34 AM

And trying to lay the blame on the British is just more rewriting of history, which is nothing new for the Soviets.
the patriot? it's nothing new for hollywood, either.

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 01:45 AM

Thermo, we can start argue again here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yes, PQ-17 and PQ-18 were bloody dead important.
Russia was fighting Wermascht with her latest reserves.

So it was F..g Bloody important that those supplys come through. Or, according to you - I strongly disagree, Russia would never surrender - but those ships HAD TO COME TO MURMANSK AT ANY COST. Any loss of HM destroyers and cruisers were IRRELEVANT - That is F... B... what the Navy is for. But they COWARDLY retreated, because his Admiral BLOODY F..G cared more about His position in Admiralty then the Outcome of World War Two !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ February 13, 2004, 23:48: Message edited by: oleg ]

Unknown_Enemy

February 14th, 2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by aiken:
compare "Solaris" by Tarkovsky and Last Sodenberg rubbish and everything will be clear. (You may also compare them both with original Lem's book and you'll understand who is the best sci-fi writer of XX century). Not the best, but definitely a classic.
I could not bother seeing the Last picture iteration.

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Oh, Thermo, another historical fact that should surely hurt your stand that US won WWII fighting both Germany and USSR
- Tirpiz was forced to to return to its base after Soviet K-21 launched 4 torpedoes on it. Did it score ? - may be not, but Tirpitz returned to the base immediatly and never sailed again. But HM Admerals were so puked after Bismark affair that they decided to sacriface the whole convoy and save their "warships" - I put asterisk deliberatly because those HHS should lose that privelege endowned since Lord Nelson

Bloody Shame.

[ February 14, 2004, 00:04: Message edited by: oleg ]

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by alarikf:
Oleg,

I live in Norfolk Virignia, US. If you are ever in the area you should check out the Naro cinema and video rental store. Why? becuase they are simply amazing in their selection. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, sorry, I appologize. I remember a very nice video shop in Seattle (Scare Crow? sorry - around 52 street, north from UW campus ) where you can rent ANYTHING - no kidding -I was stoned just looking on the selection !!

I should post "in general release"

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
oleg why bother http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

i will purchase this on dvd if i can.

and you will keep an eye out for me.

Perhaps you could help me with some other russian war movies.

I have seen a few over the years.

But I have no clue of what the titles were actually, it is a tough task for me too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
There are many - sometimes quite good but still "propaganda" movies and it is not easy to fish honest stuff. Check out stuff like "belorussky voksal", "oni srazhalis za rodinu", "a zori zdes tihii",
Or if you get it, teleserial "seventeen moments of spring" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermodyne

February 14th, 2004, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
Oh, Thermo, another historical fact that should surely hurt your stand that US won WWII fighting both Germany and USSR
- Tirpiz was forced to to return to its base after Soviet K-21 launched 4 torpedoes on it. Did it score ? - may be not, but Tirpitz returned to the base immediatly and never sailed again. But HM Admerals were so puked after Bismark affair that they decided to sacriface the whole convoy and save their "warships" - I put asterisk deliberatly because those HHS should lose that privelege endowned since Lord Nelson

Bloody Shame. Well, let�s not argue, let�s call it a debate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

To your first point, how would four destroyers have made a difference? The corvettes were little more than MTB�s without the torpedoes, and I doubt they could have survived long enough to even ram the Terpitz. And where was the Soviet Navy? IMHO, any allied ship that operated east of the North Cape in the summer of 42 did so at great risk. The western fleets were still sailing ships that were fitted out before airpower had advanced to the point of being accepted as a threat to war ships. They were ill equipped to fight off land based air in 1942.

To the second point, how is it that the USSR was in a position that one convoy of supplies would have made such a difference. And let�s face facts, the Soviet field armies that drove the Nazi bastards back to Berlin consumed more tonnage a week than was loaded on PQ 17. So to say that it would have made more than a temporary tactical difference would need a lot of supporting evidence.

Now before I say anything more, let me say that my animosity is directed at the Soviet government in general and at Stalin in this particular moment in history. The Russian people that I know personally are fine people. And I hold no animosity towards the people of Russia. But there are some facts that bring great weight to this debate.

Germany fielded the most skilled military organization that the world had ever known at the beginning of WW 2. Their understanding of maneuver exceeded that of any army in the world. This is due in great part to their understanding of why they failed in WW 1. And they were under the control of one of the four most evil Groups of men in modern history. The army of the USSR was something different. Its problems stem from the fact that it was controlled by one of the four most evil men of modern history. While Hitler and the Nazi�s killed more people in the years of Nazi rule, Stalin�s government killed many more, but over a longer period of time.

Also, I seem to recall that Hitler had a willing partner when he divided up Poland. This seems to be much ignored when WW 2 is debated. The USSR was a willing partner in the single event that triggered WW 2.

With Stalin�s track record up to that point, he is lucky that the west didn�t see the eastern front as a way of killing two birds with one stone. Aiding both sides just enough to ensure that they both shot their bolts.

And one more thing. What is this Great Patriotic War stuff? And what do the old Soviets call the invasion of Poland?

[ February 14, 2004, 01:32: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

se5a

February 14th, 2004, 04:09 AM

nice shot of the catalina...

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
...And one more thing. What is this Great Patriotic War stuff? And what do the old Soviets call the invasion of Poland?... Good post, Thermo. It will take me some time to reply in parts

But first, about Great Patriotic War. I think you read the Mein Kumpf and The Directive Barborosa. Then you should realise that the prime outcome of Hitler' victory would be the total anihilation of slavic people. Holocust was a tradegy but it could a small footnote compared to ~300 milions of dead Russians, Ukranians, Belorusians, etc. - all "inferior" races. So it was indeed The Great Patriotic War - the war for the very survivor of all us. I don't think people in the Weast, espicialy in US, who was practically untouched by WWII horrors appreciate how much it hurts us still... I was born many years after WWII and still my most vivid memories are my Family celebrations of May 9 and November 7 ,with all grownups tosting for "never ever another war"

So every time I read western media propoganda about Russian "aggression" I want to laugh and cry at the same time. What a nonsense ! Whatever we ever wanted is a secure peace. Hard to achive with Americam Imperialists building bases all around borders and dictating their will everywhere.

As to Stalin - I dispise him. He was an ars..l who killed millions and still failed to protect the country. He was a paranoic idiot directly responsible to the horrors of 41-42.

If only party listen to the lasr Lenin; letters in 1922 ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ February 14, 2004, 02:43: Message edited by: oleg ]

oleg

February 14th, 2004, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... To your first point, how would four destroyers have made a difference? The corvettes were little more than MTB’s without the torpedoes, and I doubt they could have survived long enough to even ram the Terpitz... Frankly, i don't know. i don't know whether Tirpitz will indeed attack the convoy. But I am very sure that if escorts stay with convoy, they would protect merchant ships from Luftwaffe and Kringsmarine. There would be no "Bloody Sunday of July 5", with all cruisers and destroyers around.

History does not know "if", but in my book, Royal Navy behaved like cowards. They left helpless concorts to the mercy of mercyless foe. It is like escorting a girl to the dark alley and then runing away at the first suspitios sound in the bushes.

Rightly or wrongly but <snipped> - I red once again the history of malta convoys and decided not to smear the reputation of the honorable institution on the basis of action of few scoundrels.

[ February 14, 2004, 03:05: Message edited by: oleg ]

PvK

February 14th, 2004, 06:59 AM

In Seattle anyway, we have a few theatres which do show foreign films, we have an annual international film festival, and of course there are video stores (Scarecrow is good). I realize that foreign pickings are often woefully slim, while there's abundant Hollydreck, but I thought maybe you meant something else.

PvK

Taz-in-Space

February 14th, 2004, 08:17 AM

I for one would like to see more foreign films in US cinemas. I'm sure that there are many fine films that are missed by both sides.

As to the conduct of the WWII militaries and if they could have done better, sure they could have. BUT THAT IS HINDSIGHT!

What was done by ALL sides during that awful mess was incredible.

Here in the US, few know what the Russian people had to endure. The statistics I saw were amazing to me many years ago when I studied it.

I remember reading that the losses of men on the 'Eastern Front' were:
20 Million Russians and 2.5 Million Germans.
An amazing 8-1 ratio! This is over the whole war.
Think of what the ratio had to be at the start.
And the Germans LOST...

How did the Russians do it? Yes, they had help; but largely they DID fight with their own equipment. One place I wouldn't have liked to be was in the Russian infantry during 1941-1943.

IMO not enough note was made about the Eastern Front land war in the West. Just as I'm sure not much notice is shown in USSR about the Bombing campaign waged in the West.

You tend to ignore what you haven't experianced.
Simple human nature...

Unknown_Enemy

February 14th, 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
I for one would like to see more foreign films in US cinemas. I'm sure that there are many fine films that are missed by both sides.

As to the conduct of the WWII militaries and if they could have done better, sure they could have. BUT THAT IS HINDSIGHT!

What was done by ALL sides during that awful mess was incredible.

Here in the US, few know what the Russian people had to endure. The statistics I saw were amazing to me many years ago when I studied it.

I remember reading that the losses of men on the 'Eastern Front' were:
20 Million Russians and 2.5 Million Germans.
An amazing 8-1 ratio! This is over the whole war.
Think of what the ratio had to be at the start.
And the Germans LOST...

How did the Russians do it? Yes, they had help; but largely they DID fight with their own equipment. One place I wouldn't have liked to be was in the Russian infantry during 1941-1943.

IMO not enough note was made about the Eastern Front land war in the West. Just as I'm sure not much notice is shown in USSR about the Bombing campaign waged in the West.

You tend to ignore what you haven't experianced.
Simple human nature... There is a problem with your numbers.
You put in it only the germans casualties, but dont get in all other nationalities (european volonteers, russians, italians) who came in URSS to fight versus communism.

From what I remember of "History of WW2" from Liddle Hart there was around 6 millions dead soldiers on the axis side. Remember until the very Last days of WW2, there was 1 million "russian" soldiers fighting on the side of germany.

Aiken

February 14th, 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
There is a problem with your numbers.
You put in it only the germans casualties, but dont get in all other nationalities (european volonteers, russians, italians) who came in URSS to fight versus communism.

From what I remember of "History of WW2" from Liddle Hart there was around 6 millions dead soldiers on the axis side. Remember until the very Last days of WW2, there was 1 million "russian" soldiers fighting on the side of germany. Not quite right.
Irretrievable human casualties of german allied armies in german-soviet battle-front (22.6.1941-9.5.1945):
Irretrievable casualties: 1468145.
|-Dead: 668163
|-Was taken prisoner: 799982
|- Retuned to home: 662229
Counted countries: Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland, Slovakia.
You may check it yourself at http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_11.html using babelfish.

Unknown_Enemy

February 14th, 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by aiken:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Frans:
Hi,

Thanks that we may check it ourselves, but to be honnest. My russin isn't that good lately http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Intimidator (Frans) http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soldat.ru%2Fdoc%2Fca sualties%2Fbook%2Fchapter5_13_11.html&lp=ru_en&tt=url

Babelfish is really useful resource http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>I cannot find yet data about the number of axis casualties on eastern from, but for germany it amounted more to the 3 500 000.

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/World-War-II.htm

Problem is, I cannot find the bielo-russian / georgians casualties while fighting on the german side, but it was massive but not really fit on the official history.

(no punt intended, just history)

Aiken

February 14th, 2004, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
I cannot find yet data about the number of axis casualties on eastern from, but for germany it amounted more to the 3 500 000.

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/World-War-II.htm

Problem is, I cannot find the bielo-russian / georgians casualties while fighting on the german side, but it was massive but not really fit on the official history.

(no punt intended, just history) Sorry for that link I provided. For some reason babelfish translate only 1/3 of document.
About German casualties: Eastern Front (22.6.1941-9.5.1945)
Total: 7181.1 thousands
|-Dead: 3604.8
|-Was taken prisoner: 3576.3
+ 1 591 125 taken prisoner after 9.5.1941 so total casualties = 8772,2 thousands.

Searching for information about national legions

Aha. 25000 Georgians - part of Turkic Legion.
70000 Byelorussians - most of them (47000) served as "Hilfswillige" (voluntary assistant) in occupied territories.
Where was no massive deaths amongst them, most part of all legioners gave up.

[ February 14, 2004, 21:11: Message edited by: aiken ]

The Frans

February 15th, 2004, 02:16 AM

Hi,

Thanks that we may check it ourselves, but to be honnest. My russin isn't that good lately http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But without kidding, very interesting discussion.

I agree with unknown Enemy, It is very hard to understand or imagine what the russian people had to endure.

I for myself life in the Netherlands (west of germany) That country was overrun by the Nazi's in only 4 days. And even I could see the damage they left, when I was 10 years old (35 years after the war ended)

So imagine how great the russian damage and disaster must be after 3 or 4 years of full scale war.

Intimidator (Frans)

Aiken

February 15th, 2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by The Frans:
Hi,

Thanks that we may check it ourselves, but to be honnest. My russin isn't that good lately http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Intimidator (Frans) http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soldat.ru%2Fdoc%2Fca sualties%2Fbook%2Fchapter5_13_11.html&lp=ru_en&tt=url

Babelfish is really useful resource http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

oleg

February 16th, 2004, 01:59 PM

...
20 Million Russians and 2.5 Million Germans.
An amazing 8-1 ratio! This is over the whole war.
Think of what the ratio had to be at the start.
And the Germans LOST...

.. [/QB]20 Millions is an estimate of total casualties, including civilians. In Leningrad alone 900 000 civilians died during the siege because of hunger and cold. Many other ciites were bombed to 90% when bothe armies went back anf forth. For example, civilian casulties in Stalingrad are estimated 200 000. No one know for sure, a lot of people were evacuated but not all.

gregebowman

February 16th, 2004, 03:31 PM

First of all, although you may not hear about foreign films being available in the states, I know for a fact that they are. Suncoast Motion Picture has a few. I even bought a German film called Stalingrad, about the events there as seen through the eyes of the German troops. Very interesting film. I'm just glad I wasn't there. If this PQ-17 film ever makes it to the states in dvd form, I'll buy it.

Speaking of this PQ-17, I admit I know nothing about it. In my teen years, I was an avid reader when it came to WWII. I must have read everythig in my high school library on the subject. But I don't remember reading about this. It's a shame, though, that the escorts ran when they could have at least made a try at defending the convoy. But if I was the commander, and I saw the Tirpitz, I might run too. Hard to tell what one will do unless you're in that position.

But speaking of Russians and tragedy, there's an event that happened at the end of the war that should make some Russians ashamed. There was a passenger ship, whose name I can't remember, crammed full of over 10,000 fleeing Germans, mostly civilians. I can't recall which body of water it was, but the ship was either torpedoed or shelled, and sank, killing most of those 10,000. This is a tragedy far greater than the Titanic, yet no one ever talks about it. I've only seen a couple of references to it in some of those books I used to read.

[ February 16, 2004, 13:31: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

Unknown_Enemy

February 16th, 2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
First of all, although you may not hear about foreign films being available in the states, I know for a fact that they are. Suncoast Motion Picture has a few. I even bought a German film called Stalingrad, about the events there as seen through the eyes of the German troops. Very interesting film. I'm just glad I wasn't there. If this PQ-17 film ever makes it to the states in dvd form, I'll buy it.

Speaking of this PQ-17, I admit I know nothing about it. In my teen years, I was an avid reader when it came to WWII. I must have read everythig in my high school library on the subject. But I don't remember reading about this. It's a shame, though, that the escorts ran when they could have at least made a try at defending the convoy. But if I was the commander, and I saw the Tirpitz, I might run too. Hard to tell what one will do unless you're in that position.

But speaking of Russians and tragedy, there's an event that happened at the end of the war that should make some Russians ashamed. There was a passenger ship, whose name I can't remember, crammed full of over 10,000 fleeing Germans, mostly civilians. I can't recall which body of water it was, but the ship was either torpedoed or shelled, and sank, killing most of those 10,000. This is a tragedy far greater than the Titanic, yet no one ever talks about it. I've only seen a couple of references to it in some of those books I used to read. For the Allied, civilians ships were as much a target as military. In fact, civilian belongings that could (even barely) be used by military were deemed legitimate targets for all involved countries. It is only AFTER the end of WW2 that was developped this guilt about civilian casualties.

oleg

February 16th, 2004, 05:46 PM

It was Wilghelm Gustloff. Sank January 30, 1945, around 4 a.m. with the loss of more than 5000 lives.

Here is a short story: http://www.militaryhistoryOnline.com/wwii/articles/wilhelmgustloff.aspx

But how could Marinescu knew it was passenger liner with 6000 refuges ? Complete darkeness, 4 am in winter, large enemy convoy in sight...

[ February 16, 2004, 16:16: Message edited by: oleg ]

Intimidator

February 16th, 2004, 06:03 PM

Oleg,

You don't have to justify the fact that they killed civilians.
A lot, and I mean A LOT, of mistakes where made in WOII at both sides.

As I told before I life in the Netherlands, in the city of Nymegen. 20 km south of Arnhem (Market garden !!)

The US. bombed Nymegen in 1944, because they thought it was the German town : Kleve
I can tell you they missed Kleve by 27 km !!

But lucky for us the town of Nymegen now posses a Square called : Square 1944 (is no joke)

Intimidator , (Frans)

gregebowman

February 16th, 2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
[ For the Allied, civilians ships were as much a target as military. In fact, civilian belongings that could (even barely) be used by military were deemed legitimate targets for all involved countries. It is only AFTER the end of WW2 that was developped this guilt about civilian casualties. [/QB][/QUOTE]

The firebombing of Dresden is a good example of that. The city was full of refugees, but it was firebombed almost out of existence. I don't think the city even had a strategic value. I think it was the policy to do anything that would destroy the morale of the German people.

Intimidator

February 16th, 2004, 07:15 PM

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden2.JPG

DRESDEN 1945

Rumours: ' The bombing took place at the end of the war, Germany was already beaten. The only reason for the bombing was to show the Soviets what the west was capable of: 100.000 deaths '

tesco samoa

February 16th, 2004, 08:09 PM

Could you please just place a link to that picture with a warning.

Intimidator

February 16th, 2004, 08:16 PM

Sorry, You are right.
Did not think of that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Intimidator,

gregebowman

February 16th, 2004, 08:23 PM

Not only did the Allies do that to Dresden, America was doing that on almost a daily basis in the Last stages of WWII on Japan. ONly when they figured that it would cost over a million Allied lives for an invasion did they decide to drop the bomb. Twice! Even though the thought of atomic war still frightens me (and anyone who has lived through the Cold War), I think it was the right decision. It got the Japanese to stop thinking about their code of Bushido and the Divine Wind, and settle for a surrender.

Unknown_Enemy

February 17th, 2004, 02:32 AM

Here are some numbers with the source that provided them.
Hum, wait a minute.
Did I said it ?
....
Yes I did.
I said Numbers. Not humans, not soldiers or fathers, just numbers. Sometime, in the heat of a discussion, we forget what we are talking about : the death by violent means of millions of people.

# Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

* Military:
o Info. Please: 6,115,000 (all causes)
o Compton's: 6,750,000
o Keegan: 7,000,000
o Small & Singer: 7,500,000
o Eckhardt: 7,500,000
o Davies: 8,000,000 to 9,000,000
o Mazower: 3M POWs through starvation + 6.5M in battle = 9.5M
o Urlanis: 10,000,000
o Volkogonov: 10,000,000
o Ellis: 11,000,000
o Britannica: 11,000,000
o Encarta: 13,000,000
o Kinder: 13,600,000
o Wallechinsky: 13,600,000
o HarperCollins: 14,500,000
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 22M
o Steven Shabad
+ Sokolov's new calculations: 26.4M
+ Gorbachev's official est.: 8,668,000 Red Army dead
o MEDIAN: 10M
* Civilian:
o Compton's: 6M
o Ellis: 6,700,000
o Britannica: 7,000,000
o HarperCollins: 7,000,000
o Encarta: 7,000,000
o Kinder: 7,000,000
o Keegan: 7,000,000
o Eckhardt: 7,500,000
o Mazower: 10M
o Urlanis: 10,000,000
o Steven Shabad (citing Sokolov): 16.9M
o Davies: 16,000,000 to 19,000,000
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 18M
o MEDIAN: 7M
* Total:
o Compton's: 12.75M
o Keegan: 14M
o Eckhardt: 15M
o Ellis: 17.7M
o Britannica: 18M
o Mazower: 19.5M
o Encarta: 20M
o Messenger: 20M
o Urlanis: 20M
o Kinder: 20.6M
o HarperCollins: 21.5M
o Wallechinsky: 20-26M
o Davies: 24M to 28M
o Volkogonov, Dmitri, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy (1991): 26-27M
o Hochschild: 27M
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 40M
o Steven Shabad
+ Sokolov's new calculations: 43.3M
+ Stalin's official public est.: 7M dead
+ Khrushchev's official est.: 20M
+ Gorbachev's official est.: 27M
o Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks: 49M (acc2 book review: Agence France Presse, 16 June 1994)
o MEDIAN: 20M

Intimidator

February 17th, 2004, 02:36 AM

The fact is UE. It's a lot easier to think of it in numbers rather than human beings.

Intimidator,

Thermodyne

February 18th, 2004, 02:46 AM

Hey guys, you are all missing a major point here. In an all out war like WW 2, civilians are legitimate targets. Civilians make the materials of war. Farmers contribute, wives contribute and a 15 year old can be expected to be under arms an two to three years. Any building can be used for shelter, and any city is a legitimate target. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure was as important as bombing transportation and industry.

Also, while the massive 1000 plane raids over Europe were very much a welcome propaganda tool, they were also the end result of pure economics. When you can produce enough bombers to overwhelm the local defenses, and then carpet bomb the whole urban area of a city, you win. You no longer need to hit a small target. And you no longer worry about a single hospital or school. You bomb them all and they get lost in the weight of the raid as a whole.

In a nut shell, governments do not make war, Nations make war. And as citizens, we are all libel for the actions of our nations. The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb, and they knew that the V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. Also, people tend to forget that England was done for by 1944-45. Two major wars in less than thirty years had gutted her manpower, and the people at home were very tired of war. The V1�s and V2�s had driven moral down to levels not seen since 1940-41, and the fiasco that was Market Garden had spent a vast portion of her offensive capability. Also there was the issue of supplying the troops on the continent, their maximum numbers were dependant on how many tons of supply that could be trucked to them from the few working docks on the coast.

Let�s look at a few points about how small the allied advantage could have been in the winter of 44-45. The allied armies had shot their bolts and were in need of extended re-supply and refit. The ground pounders were being rotated for rest and replaced with green troops. The allies had reached their limit as far as supplying troops at the front was concerned. Fuel was being allocated on tactical level. Only the air forces were still able to maintain the offensive, but winter is not good air weather in northern Europe. The Americans were trying to bury the actual casualty figures for their armored units. The Sherman�s were death traps, only the weight of their numbers and the ease with which they could be repaired made them viable. But crews were refusing to fight them against German armor. The English were very busy trying to eliminate V2 launch sites and were very much in defensive mode. Turning south to pinch off the bulge used up their reserves. And while Patton made one hell of a tactical redeployment to strike the southern side of the bulge, he ran the tracks and wheels off of his army in so doing. Then the Germans launched a second counter offensive. The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

Now what if the Nazis had developed the bomb? We knew they were close. What if they tested their first one on the Soviet armies in Poland? Then mounted the second on a V5 and dropped it on London? Or, what if the V2�s began to carry gas, what if the Soviets ran into clouds of nerve agent when they crossed into Germany? There was still a lot that could have gone wrong late in the war. And the Government of England was not completely stable. The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it. Were you in a position of authority at that time, would you have left 2500+ heavy bombers to chase trains and bomb factories here and there? Or would you have used them to cut the heart out of Germany�s rotting carcass? And let�s not forget that Germany had done the same to England early in the war. Not quite on the same scale, but thay had sent everything that would fly on more than one occasion. No, I don�t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet.

Unknown_Enemy

February 18th, 2004, 11:55 AM

Thermodyne, I am afraid I have to strongly refute almost all of your points.
civilians are legitimate targetsSort of.
Allied command started by bombing all known civilian infrastructures, but due to lack of results, switched to transportation and industry. The case of Dresden has no military justification. For an explanation of it, you should look for political reasons.
Source : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2

1000 plane raids over Europe .. were also the end result of pure economics.False.
The goal of the air war was first to break the German into submission. Problem was that the bomber's precision was really bad until 1944. Due to navigation difficulty, they used to release their bombs in a 5 miles area from their targets ! In 1944, bombers started to use a new organisation and new navigation systems which reduced the area to 400 meters. So before 44, you would need hundred of bombers to destroy a single sheltered factory. That is why large towns were easier targets, but from 44, it really became a possibility to crush the German industry from the sky. And contrary to the popular belief, it was done by bombing the facilities not the towns
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Perret's Air War.

The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb.Wrong.
German Nuclear research was deprived of resources because scientists could not assure the Nazi power that their work would lead to a weapon in a short time frame. Instead, resources were transferred to rocket and plane development.

V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the USOn a military point of view, the achievement of all V weapons is null. It was a terror weapon which failed in its objective to submit UK into peace. Even if hypothetical V3 were send on the US coast, it would not have changed anything, and would have also failed to break the will to fight of the US population. Rather the contrary. Did Pearl Harbor or 09/11 broke the will of US population ?
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Gilbert Martin's History of the Twentieth Century

The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it.
.............
The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.This is the worst part of your post.
First, Market Garden : primary goal of it was to open the way to the Ruhr and break the German army on the western front. It failed. However, it achieved to generate huge attritions both in men and AFV to the Wermacht, while the allied had plenty of both. After Market Garden and Bulge offensive, Hitler was convinced the western allied were spend, and would be unable to mount another offensive for the year to come. A few weeks later Patton broke through the Siegfried Line in the south and Montgomery made a breakthought in the north, opening the way to the Ruhr. Supply has been a temporary problem. Never a critical one. In fact, supply has been the strongest strength of US army for the whole war.
About UK now :
UK suffered around 715 000 dead from WW1, and around 450 000 dead in WW2(including civilians). Compare this to the 1 800 000 dead Germans in WW1, then to the 5 500 000 dead of WW2 and you can start laughing at your �gutted manpower� statement.
For the �very tired of war�, the intended peace agreement was made public at Yalta : German capitulation without negotiations. And the UK population massively supported it. No one in UK was thinking of ending the war without Hitler's head on a pike. Even less when at Last, victory was in sight since the success of allied landing in Europe, surrender of Italy and the victory in Africa. We are not speaking about 1941 here, but about middle/end 1944.
Sources : For UK moral situation : any UK newspaper archive you like. Take your pick.
For casualties : Boris Urlanis' War and Populations.
Strategic situation : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Guderian's Achtung Panzer, Liddell Hart's The other side of the hill and Manstein's Lost Victories.

As a conclusion, you are completely off mark. End of 1944, the writing was on the wall, as all German generals knew. Germany never went near achieving a nuclear bomb. It is an Hollywood picture, not History. UK population never arrived near breaking point. It is a lie.
I recommend you to read Liddell's Hart books. He is probably the most respected WW2 historian. You may know that Blitzkrieg is the translation of �Lightning War�, expression created by Liddell Hart when he was advocating new strategies for AFV in the 30s. As a side note, he was not listened in UK, even less in France but Guderian had his strategy papers translated and applied to the German army.

[ February 18, 2004, 15:11: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

rextorres

February 18th, 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
No, I don�t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet. And more liberals should use that freedom to stand up to leaders who use fear and lies to get their countries into wars for political and ideological gain like in Germany.

The problem with Germany was that there were too many fascists and not enough liberals - if you ask me. When I read stuff that some people write it makes me wonder if we are starting to have the same problem here in the U.S.

[ February 18, 2004, 18:46: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Thermodyne

February 18th, 2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Thermodyne, I am afraid I have to strongly refute almost all of your points.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />civilians are legitimate targetsSort of.
Allied command started by bombing all known civilian infrastructures, but due to lack of results, switched to transportation and industry. The case of Dresden has no military justification. For an explanation of it, you should look for political reasons.
Source : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2

1000 plane raids over Europe .. were also the end result of pure economics.False.
The goal of the air war was first to break the German into submission. Problem was that the bomber's precision was really bad until 1944. Due to navigation difficulty, they used to release their bombs in a 5 miles area from their targets ! In 1944, bombers started to use a new organisation and new navigation systems which reduced the area to 400 meters. So before 44, you would need hundred of bombers to destroy a single sheltered factory. That is why large towns were easier targets, but from 44, it really became a possibility to crush the German industry from the sky. And contrary to the popular belief, it was done by bombing the facilities not the towns
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Perret's Air War.

The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb.Wrong.
German Nuclear research was deprived of resources because scientists could not assure the Nazi power that their work would lead to a weapon in a short time frame. Instead, resources were transferred to rocket and plane development.

V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the USOn a military point of view, the achievement of all V weapons is null. It was a terror weapon which failed in its objective to submit UK into peace. Even if hypothetical V3 were send on the US coast, it would not have changed anything, and would have also failed to break the will to fight of the US population. Rather the contrary. Did Pearl Harbor or 09/11 broke the will of US population ?
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Gilbert Martin's History of the Twentieth Century

The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it.
.............
The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.This is the worst part of your post.
First, Market Garden : primary goal of it was to open the way to the Ruhr and break the German army on the western front. It failed. However, it achieved to generate huge attritions both in men and AFV to the Wermacht, while the allied had plenty of both. After Market Garden and Bulge offensive, Hitler was convinced the western allied were spend, and would be unable to mount another offensive for the year to come. A few weeks later Patton broke through the Siegfried Line in the south and Montgomery made a breakthought in the north, opening the way to the Ruhr. Supply has been a temporary problem. Never a critical one. In fact, supply has been the strongest strength of US army for the whole war.
About UK now :
UK suffered around 715 000 dead from WW1, and around 450 000 dead in WW2(including civilians). Compare this to the 1 800 000 dead Germans in WW1, then to the 5 500 000 dead of WW2 and you can start laughing at your �gutted manpower� statement.
For the �very tired of war�, the intended peace agreement was made public at Yalta : German capitulation without negotiations. And the UK population massively supported it. No one in UK was thinking of ending the war without Hitler's head on a pike. Even less when at Last, victory was in sight since the success of allied landing in Europe, surrender of Italy and the victory in Africa. We are not speaking about 1941 here, but about middle/end 1944.
Sources : For UK moral situation : any UK newspaper archive you like. Take your pick.
For casualties : Boris Urlanis' War and Populations.
Strategic situation : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Guderian's Achtung Panzer, Liddell Hart's The other side of the hill and Manstein's Lost Victories.

As a conclusion, you are completely off mark. End of 1944, the writing was on the wall, as all German generals knew. Germany never went near achieving a nuclear bomb. It is an Hollywood picture, not History. UK population never arrived near breaking point. It is a lie.
I recommend you to read Liddell's Hart books. He is probably the most respected WW2 historian. You may know that Blitzkrieg is the translation of �Lightning War�, expression created by Liddell Hart when he was advocating new strategies for AFV in the 30s. As a side note, he was not listened in UK, even less in France but Guderian had his strategy papers translated and applied to the German army. <hr /></blockquote>No time for a detailed argument right now, I�m at work. But to start with, let�s suggest that you find a modern historian. Hart died in 70 (?) I think. And while he was an innovator of early armored tactics, he was not privy to the intelligence gathered on the German nuclear research program. Much of this has only come to light because of forced declassification here in the states. His work is also tainted by his dissatisfaction with the fame that those who cam later gathered by using his ideas. Also, he was never more than a lukewarm supporter of strategic bombing. Most armored theorists feel that the role of airpower should be focused on ground support. If you search Kings Collage for every record that Hart ever had access to, you will find no mention of German weapons grade Uranium production levels for 1944-45. But the US archives have been found to hold quit a lot of information now that the story of the Uranium�s capture has gone public.

Your comment on the bombers only supports my position. The early missions could not put the needed number of planes over the target to overwhelm the defenses. Strategic bombing in Europe was still evolving at the end of the war. The B29�s over Japan proved the theory further. Then the Bomb changed the game before the theory was ever fully mature. But the targets remained the same. Be it a fleet of B29s or a single SS18, the target is a major city. Sure today some weapons will be targeted on their counter parts in a first strike profile, but the majority of the weapons will fly to major cities.

On you use of the popular press as a source for measuring the moral of the British people, I would remind you that the press was on a very tight leash during the war, and I would suggest that you read the personal correspondence between Churchill and FDR. These letters paint a much different picture.

And Market Garden was pure stupidity. Map table maneuver at its worst. And a waste of fuel that would have been better used elsewhere. Illusions of North African Grandeur.

[ February 18, 2004, 18:49: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

AMF

February 18th, 2004, 09:23 PM

Just read this...all I can say is WHOA!

Will refute later.

At work now

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Hey guys, you are all missing a major point here. In an all out war like WW 2, civilians are legitimate targets. Civilians make the materials of war. Farmers contribute, wives contribute and a 15 year old can be expected to be under arms an two to three years. Any building can be used for shelter, and any city is a legitimate target. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure was as important as bombing transportation and industry.

Also, while the massive 1000 plane raids over Europe were very much a welcome propaganda tool, they were also the end result of pure economics. When you can produce enough bombers to overwhelm the local defenses, and then carpet bomb the whole urban area of a city, you win. You no longer need to hit a small target. And you no longer worry about a single hospital or school. You bomb them all and they get lost in the weight of the raid as a whole.

In a nut shell, governments do not make war, Nations make war. And as citizens, we are all libel for the actions of our nations. The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb, and they knew that the V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. Also, people tend to forget that England was done for by 1944-45. Two major wars in less than thirty years had gutted her manpower, and the people at home were very tired of war. The V1?s and V2?s had driven moral down to levels not seen since 1940-41, and the fiasco that was Market Garden had spent a vast portion of her offensive capability. Also there was the issue of supplying the troops on the continent, their maximum numbers were dependant on how many tons of supply that could be trucked to them from the few working docks on the coast.

Let?s look at a few points about how small the allied advantage could have been in the winter of 44-45. The allied armies had shot their bolts and were in need of extended re-supply and refit. The ground pounders were being rotated for rest and replaced with green troops. The allies had reached their limit as far as supplying troops at the front was concerned. Fuel was being allocated on tactical level. Only the air forces were still able to maintain the offensive, but winter is not good air weather in northern Europe. The Americans were trying to bury the actual casualty figures for their armored units. The Sherman?s were death traps, only the weight of their numbers and the ease with which they could be repaired made them viable. But crews were refusing to fight them against German armor. The English were very busy trying to eliminate V2 launch sites and were very much in defensive mode. Turning south to pinch off the bulge used up their reserves. And while Patton made one hell of a tactical redeployment to strike the southern side of the bulge, he ran the tracks and wheels off of his army in so doing. Then the Germans launched a second counter offensive. The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

Now what if the Nazis had developed the bomb? We knew they were close. What if they tested their first one on the Soviet armies in Poland? Then mounted the second on a V5 and dropped it on London? Or, what if the V2?s began to carry gas, what if the Soviets ran into clouds of nerve agent when they crossed into Germany? There was still a lot that could have gone wrong late in the war. And the Government of England was not completely stable. The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it. Were you in a position of authority at that time, would you have left 2500+ heavy bombers to chase trains and bomb factories here and there? Or would you have used them to cut the heart out of Germany?s rotting carcass? And let?s not forget that Germany had done the same to England early in the war. Not quite on the same scale, but thay had sent everything that would fly on more than one occasion. No, I don?t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet.

Unknown_Enemy

February 18th, 2004, 09:28 PM

Good. I alway welcome a good argument.

However, I will wait before arguing further that you cite a few authors to support your views.

Note I sometime have doubts about which authors can be trusted. I am still trying to find the name of the author of a recent book about D Day. Some parts of the book were ok, but the strategic situation painted was something like "if it didn't work, the russians would have made a separate peace.". That is why I am quite cautious about authors, waiting to see how they fare against each others.

Speaking of which, Liddell Hart has indeed some detractors (Montgomery first above all). However, turn the way you want but you'll still have one of the most (if not the most) respected WW2 historian. His "History of WW2" and "The Other side of the Hill" are classics.
Another author to consider seriously is Boris Urlanis. Serious work indeed.

Waiting for your answer.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

AMF

February 18th, 2004, 09:46 PM

Unk_E,

No, I think we're on the same page, we probably came at it from different directions (me from a PolSci/PolTheory/Just War Theory perspective) and you from a practical perspective. I was responding to Thermo's orignal post, not yours.

But, on second thought, I think I'm going to pass becuase I just noted another comment: " I don't think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet."

When statements like this get thrown out there debate, almost by definition, becomes impossible.

And, I am tired of political debates in gaming forums. I get too worked up and it taints my later Posts.

Ta,

Alarik

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Good. I alway welcome a good argument.

However, I will wait before arguing further that you cite a few authors to support your views.

Note I sometime have doubts about which authors can be trusted. I am still trying to find the name of the author of a recent book about D Day. Some parts of the book were ok, but the strategic situation painted was something like "if it didn't work, the russians would have made a separate peace.". That is why I am quite cautious about authors, waiting to see how they fare against each others.

Speaking of which, Liddell Hart has indeed some detractors (Montgomery first above all). However, turn the way you want but you'll still have one of the most (if not the most) respected WW2 historian. His "History of WW2" and "The Other side of the Hill" are classics.
Another author to consider seriously is Boris Urlanis. Serious work indeed.

Waiting for your answer.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thermodyne

February 18th, 2004, 09:59 PM

Ok here is a direct quote for you:

"I reported for the first time orally to the Fuehrer that if these aerial attacks continued, a rapid end of the war might be the consequence."
Speer to Survey Interrogators on the Hamburg attacks.

Source is the US post WW2 bombing survey documents.

tesco samoa

February 18th, 2004, 10:35 PM

Hey can he not quote himself. As he has a good knowledge of the events of WW2. And most books on WW2 are based on opinion at that time. It is the nature of writting about the most complex event in human history. An event where most of the knowledge behind the decisions are still locked away.

Unknown_Enemy

February 18th, 2004, 10:46 PM

First and for all : if we drive off the historical ground I am off the thread. No modern political implications here please.
Thanks for your help, let's have a heated, argumented and interesting historical discussion !

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Ok here is a direct quote for you:

"I reported for the first time orally to the Fuehrer that if these aerial attacks continued, a rapid end of the war might be the consequence."
Speer to Survey Interrogators on the Hamburg attacks.

Source is the US post WW2 bombing survey documents. Found the quote !
It was indeed Speer in July 1943 reporting to Hitler. What he said pecisely was that 6 more raids like these would be enought to put Germany on its knee.
But you took the quote without looking at the facts after the raid.
No other zone bombings achieved the same results despite the enormous augmentation of avalaible planes. Speer's policy of industry dispersal enabled a military industrial output increased by 50% in 1943 DESPITE THE ZONE BOMBINGS !!!

Then as you surely know, zone bombing was almost abandonned by end of 1943 toward troop support, transport disruption and oil facilities destruction. Because of bad results for zone bombing......

Originally posted by Alarikf:
nk_E,

No, I think we're on the same pageYes we were, sorry I was answering to Thermodyne.

note : edited to correct date mistake

[ February 18, 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

Thermodyne

February 19th, 2004, 01:16 AM

You are way off base here. The main reason that the big raids were far and few between were two fold. The biggest hindrance was the internal battle between the American precision daylight bombing camp and the English night area bombing camp. It was also a problem of logistics. It takes a massive logistical effort to put 1000 bombers over a target in a coordinated raid of this scale. Of the early large scale raids, only the first had good results, and there was pressure to have the bombers bomb many competing targets.

The second reason was also a difference of opinion, the Americans wanted to target specific areas of the German war economy, while bomber command was under orders from Churchill to bomb the German people. "an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers upon the Nazi homeland." Is how Bomber Harris remembered it in his letters.

Hamburg had been bombed over 100 times by July 43, when Harris issued the order for the raid in question.

[Quote]
This is a letter, dated as early as 27 May 1943, and written by Harris to his six group commanders, setting out his future intentions.
The first part can usefully be included here.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
MOST SECRET
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
BOMBER COMMAND
OPERATION ORDER NO. 173
Copy No: 23 Date: 27th May, 1943
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
INFORMATION
The importance of H A M B U R G. the second largest city in Germany with a population of one and a half millions, is well known and needs no further emphasis. The total destruction of this city would achieve immeasurable results in reducing the industrial capacity of the enemy's war machine. This, together with the effect on German morale, which would be felt throughout the country, would play a very important part in shortening and in winning the war.
2. The 'Battle of Hamburg' cannot be won in a single night. It is estimated that at least 10,000 tons of bombs will have to be dropped to complete the process of elimination. To achieve the maximum effect of air bombardment, this city should be subjected to sustained attack.
Forces to be Employed
3. Bomber Command forces will consist of all available heavies in operational squadrons until sufficient hours of darkness enable the medium bombers to take part. It is hoped that the night attacks will be preceded and/or followed by heavy daylight attacks by the United States VIIlth Bomber Command.
INTENTION
4. To destroy HAMBURG.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
The Battle of Hamburg, The Firestorm Raid, Martin Middlebrook, pg. 95.

[end quote]

And as we all know, the Americans joined in.

But then the Americans went down the path of deep penetration bombing, and the result was the suspension of daylight bombing beyond the range of escort fighters. After that the Americans played with the Big Week theory, and then switched to back to specific daylight precision targets.

When Harris sent 770+ bombers against Dresden, the reason was not completely clear. But the results were stunning. The Americans followed up with two raid totaling about 500 planes. There have been many reasons given, terror bombing of civilians being the popular one, and retaliation for the bombing of Canterbury being another. Recently there has been evidence that the allies felt that there were research facilities of significant value there. I am inclined to think it was the latter; the 8th had better targets on the list than Dresden.

The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1936 Lists the city as a center of higher education and research. It starts out by stating that the city was the seat of a number of well-known scientific associations. The educational institutions are numerous and of high order. It also mentions that the city was a transportation hub linking the rest of the nation to the Elbe river transportation system. Then the article mentions the extensive distilleries that were situated in the city. So take your pick. IMHO it was a combination off targets. The universities were probably doing work on advanced physics, there was most likely fuel production from the distilleries and it was also a transportation target. The lack of a specific justification for the bombing by the allies would suggest that the universities may have been high on the list.

At Hamburg 50,000 people were killed, more or less. Of more value, over a million people were displaced and fled the city. Dresden lists 135,000 killed.

The air war in Europe was a battle of opposing ideas, and probably of egos too. But when LeMay went to the Pacific, he switched to night time incendiary raids. He has stated that the Japanese cities were prime targets for fire raids, and that they had little or no ability to defend against his bombers at night. Japan lacked the radar guided artillery that ringed the major German cities.

As a side note I would add that AAA downed more allied bombers than fighters did. 3 to 1 IIRC. And the allies already had proximity fused AAA shells by 1945. Had the Germans developed the technology, stream bombing might have been out of favor by the end of the war.

Unknown_Enemy

February 20th, 2004, 02:00 AM

Well and good but :

- it doesn't deny the fact that zone bombing as defined by the levelling of entire area was abandonned in Europe due to lack of results, as can be found in Liddell Hart's books, or Perret's Air War book.

- I stand by my point : Hambourg was the most succeful raid, ALL following massive raids suffered from unsatisfactory results (and heavy casualties for some)

- Dresden
The war was finished. The question that history still ask is "why was this city bLasted out of existence while the war was won ?".

Then the points I was contesting the most are :

- "Civilians are ligitimate targets"
In europe bombing of civilians targets to advance military purpose was abandonned toward transportation/factory bombing. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources.

- "The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb."
Hollywood. Not reality. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources.

- "The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it"
Look at any WW2 author, you must be joking. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources.

- "gutted manpower"
I made my point clear. I stand by my point and still wait for your sources.

- "The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it."
Point taken about the newspaper controlled by the gouvernment. However, I stand by my point that there was no way the war could end without Hitler's head on a spike. Especially for the Brits. What's your arguments and sources ?

Thermodyne

February 20th, 2004, 03:37 AM

My conclusions are based on two areas of research. During the summer of 73 I was involved research work that involved the cataloging and photocopying of FDR�s personal papers that had been declassified during the previous year. (intern grunt work) My statements about British moral are based on the concerns the American diplomatic officers forwarded back to Washington. The repeated theme was a continuous concern for the Churchill camps ability to retain control of the government, reflecting the dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war. The low moral of the �common man� was often mentioned. And late in the war, the increasing number of labor strikes was seen as a warning sign, �indicating a rising popular movement in opposition of the war.�

The above quotes are as accurate as 30+ years of memory can make them. I have included the scanned text of an early letter that I retain a framed photo copy of. This theme was continuous for the duration of the war, with the exception that the estimates became almost bi-polar in late 44 early 45. No consensus being found among the American diplomats at that time. All of the documents are available at the FDR library, and a few of the vanilla ones are available on line. To its credit, the library resisted the cleansing of records that occurred during the mid to late nineties. Avoiding the scourge of missing indexed documents that now plagues the National Archives.
--------------------

London March 7, 1942.

Dear Mr. President:

I have been worried about the Prime Minister - both his political
status and his own spirits. He did not take well the criticism
he found on his return from Washington. The criticism was not
directed at him personally but against certain policies and against
various individuals. Unfortunately he bared his chest and assumed
the blame for everything

and everybody -politicians and soldiers alike. The natural effect
of this was to turn the criticism against himself.

He was forced, obviously reluctantly, to make changes, thus
failing o get full credit. He has, however, quieted things for
the present. His opponents have found that he has an Achilles
Heel and will undoubtedly attack again. It is curious how, when
criticism starts, a

coalition government suffers from lack of party loyalty and support.

Although the British are keeping a stiff upper lip, the surrender
of their troops at Singapore has shattered confidence to she
core - even in themselves but more particularly in their leaders.
They don't intend to take it lying down and I am satisfied we
will see the rebirth of greater determination. At the moment,
however, they can't see the end to defeats.

Unfortunately Singapore shook the Prime Minister himself to
such an extent that he has not been able to stand up in this
adversity with his old vigor.

A number of astute people, both friends and opponents, feel
it is only a question of a few months before his Government falls.
I cannot accept this view. He has been very tired but is better
in the Last day or two. I believe he will come back with renewed
strength, particularly when the tone of the war improves.

- 2 -

The President

March 7, 1942.

There is no other man in sight to give the British the leadership
Churchill does.

Cripps wears the hair shirt and wants everyone else to do
the same. The British are prepared to make any sacrifice to get
on with the war but are not interested in sacrifice for its own
sake. It has been proved that workmen need good food and entertainment
to keep up production over long periods. In his present position,
however, I believe that Cripps will do a lot of good in stiffening
things up.

Eden you know all about. Anderson is an uninspired, competent
technician. Bevin has never really risen above labor union politics.
And then we have Max| There is no one else on the horizon.

Now that the political storm has blown over, the Ministers
can give their full time to the war. There is no doubt the new
team will on balance be a big improvement over the old.

I find on my return even greater opportunity for usefulness
and deeply appreciative this opportunity you are giving me.

Sincerely,

Averell

The President,

The White House,

Washington, D. C.

- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My statements on German atomic research are based on the work of David Irving and his work with the wire tap transcripts from Captured German Atomic scientists. His books are not in general circulation largely because they expose the illegal activities of the British government during this time and the Germans during the war. The second book not going to press because of pressure brought upon the publisher.

�IN 1993 David Irving completed work on an edition of the top-secret CSDIC interrogation transcripts on senior Nazi prisoners, and of the Farm Hall transcripts -- hidden-microphone recordings of the German atomic scientists in British captivity, the release of which he had campaigned for since 1967. German publisher Langen-M�ller Verlag, of Munich, who had commissioned the book, decided not to publish (senior editor Rochus von Zab�snig complained that it looked like "Nestbeschm�tzung", as some of the overheard remarks by Nazi prisoners like General Walter Bruns revealed unwelcome details of atrocities).�

Above quoted without permission of the Observer. [But I doubt they will ever read this;)]

�The puzzle as to why the German atomic bomb program stalled has several overlapping explanations. Some of the best German physicists were Jewish and had been driven into exile, where many worked on the American or British atomic bomb programs. Nazi ideology had only scorn for "Jewish physics" and thus undervalued what theoretical physicists could contribute to the war effort. And as saturation bombing ravaged German cities, the Nazi industrial machine increasingly lacked the ability to mount a vast bomb development project to compete with the American Manhattan Project.
Still, it is clear that German physicists, for whatever reason, did fail to push hard enough to reach the goal. Some attribute that to surprising technical errors, like a grotesque overestimate of the amount of fissile material that was needed and a failure to realize that readily available graphite, if highly purified, could be used to moderate the atomic reaction instead of scarce, hard-to-get heavy water. Others blame arrogance and complacency on the part of German physicists who felt that if the job was hard for them, it would be impossible for the Allies. And some believe that there was a genuine reluctance to work on such an awesome weapon, either for moral reasons or for fear of failing and being blamed for a national defeat.
Recordings made surreptitiously of Heisenberg and other German scientists held in captivity after the German surrender show that they were stunned by news that the United States had exploded an atomic bomb over Hiroshima and refused to believe that it had actually been done. Even in these early recordings, one can discern the beginnings of a search for the moral high ground, as one German physicist contrasts the American development of "this ghastly weapon of war" with more peaceful nuclear reactor research under Hitler.�

This quote was from a historian named David Cassidy. IIRC All I retain is part of a news paper clipping. It would be from the Washington Post most likely, but could have also been from the NY Times.

My opinion is that the Americans knew that the Germans had a head start, this is documented, and assumed that the German scientists were able to do the math on the Uranium bomb just as they had done. Remember, no test of that device was required. It was the detonation engineering that needed to be tested on the plutonium bomb, and this is why the Nevada test occurred. We also knew that the Germans were working with uranium refinement at the beginning of the war, our Germans stated as much and this is documented. So, we had to assume that the Germans were as far along as we were and would have feared that they were ahead. Add to that the fact that Hitler was desperate and probably insane, and you have to consider that he would use the bomb as soon as it was ready.

David�s work can be down loaded as pdf files, just search his name.

As a side note, the Germans over-estimated the amount of material needed for a uranium bomb. They were in possession of more than enough by wars end. Only mismanagement prevented them from being able to field a crude device. The US captured enough uranium from the Germans (Japanese?) after Germany�s surrender, and after a small test of wills with the Canadians over who could get to it first. This is documented. It is said that the material went into the third bomb, which was not used, and also said that the material was not weapons grade. The mystery of the third bomb and what happened to it has never been declassified. Its target list was temporarily declassified a few years ago. The listing of Nagasaki as one of the primary targets indicates that the bomb was ready for use at or about the time of the second bombs use. Nagasaki was not the primary target for the second weapon.

Thermodyne

February 20th, 2004, 04:22 AM

Now to the gutted man power. I will point you to the stated strengths of the combatants during 44-45. Only the USSR and the US were still creating new divisions at an accelerated pace. Actual British man power curve was almost flat, although there was a marked increase in mechanized units. Her colonial contributions were still on an up curve, but the percentages are too small to carry much weight. Then take England�s losses, killed, wounded and captured as a percentage of male population from the conscriptable Category and you will see that it was the third largest known percentage. Italy may have actually been third, but their figures are skewed and not reliable. The US percentage is much less, and was enough of a problem that pacific casualties were being delayed and under reported by 1945.
One figure of note is the armored strength of Germany at the time of surrender. The Panzerwaffen listed 2023 tanks, 738 assault guns (self-propelled artillery), and 159 Flak Panzers. This is almost exactly the strength of the armored armies that invaded Russia. This is from the book �SS: The secret Archives Western Front� that I am reading now. No secrets in it, but hundreds of previously unpublished photos. It�s by Ian Baxter. The other figures you can look up on your own. Just look at the growth rates for late 44 into 45 and you will see the trend. Then look at the demobilization rates, they will give you a picture of the true state of the victors countries. Of the victors, only the USSR maintained a troop strength that was even close to the figures of 45. Even the US gutted its forces, and it had by far the strongest economy. But such is the down side of popular democracy.

Unknown_Enemy

February 20th, 2004, 09:53 AM

At work now, I'll answer tonight.

But I will point immediately that David Irving is a known Holocaust denier, who has no troubles arranging history to further his ideas. I will definitely take all his work with extreme caution, and a strong personal distaste.

I would prefer other historical sources, please.

primitive

February 20th, 2004, 10:11 AM

Thermo:
Your letters, although interesting, are describing well known internal struggles for power within the British government in the beginning of 1942. This was during one of Britain�s darkest hours and the British, both their leaders and the people, once again rose magnificently to the challenge.

What I fail to see is how this in the remotest way could be significant to your post regarding 44-45.

In a nut shell, governments do not make war, Nations make war. And as citizens, we are all libel for the actions of our nations. The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb, and they knew that the V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. Also, people tend to forget that England was done for by 1944-45. Two major wars in less than thirty years had gutted her manpower, and the people at home were very tired of war. The V1�s and V2�s had driven moral down to levels not seen since 1940-41, and the fiasco that was Market Garden had spent a vast portion of her offensive capability. Also there was the issue of supplying the troops on the continent, their maximum numbers were dependant on how many tons of supply that could be trucked to them from the few working docks on the coast.


[ February 20, 2004, 08:12: Message edited by: primitive ]

gregebowman

February 20th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Let's steer this back to WWII movies. I think I've seen almost all that Hollywood produced during my lifetime. I grew up on them almost as much as I did the old 50's sci-fi flicks. So I was wandering if anyone knows if or when Battle of the Bulge will ever come out on dvd. This is about the Last of the big war movies I still don't have in my collection. That, and The Enemy Below.

Intimidator

February 22nd, 2004, 12:49 AM

AAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH,

Just (and I mean just, was on national TV about 4 hours ago) saw that movie (Battle of the Bulge)

The F*cking movie isn't even historical acurate, some nice action but really terrible.

Tiger tanks, NOOOOOOOO WAY.

SS Colonel Kesler , It was Kampfgruppe pfeifer (or something) AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH

But I enjoyed it............ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Intimidator

narf poit chez BOOM

February 22nd, 2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Intimidator:

But I enjoyed it............ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
yes, that's >very< obvious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

gregebowman

February 23rd, 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Intimidator:
AAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH,

Just (and I mean just, was on national TV about 4 hours ago) saw that movie (Battle of the Bulge)

The F*cking movie isn't even historical acurate, some nice action but really terrible.

Tiger tanks, NOOOOOOOO WAY.

SS Colonel Kesler , It was Kampfgruppe pfeifer (or something) AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH

But I enjoyed it............ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Intimidator I know it's not very historically accurate, but it's still a good war movie. And I've always enjoyed that German song they sing in it. I used to have it, but when I lost my old computer, I lost that song. Panzerlied? Something like that. But like I said, I've been watching these older war movies for most of my 41 years, so I'd like to get my Favorites on dvd. I finally got Where Eagles Dare recently, and that was another one that was high on my list. So I may have to be just a little more patient, but I'd still like to have a release date.

Intimidator

February 24th, 2004, 11:26 PM

A good Warmovie for me is : historical acurate (is a 99% must, I can understand 1% writers creativity)

Such as The Longest Day or A Bridge to far, that are good movies. I even like the films about Patton and mc Arthur.

And offcourse (not a movie butr a TV serie) Band of Brothers, absolutly perfect and historical acurate.

And now comes the worst part of cheap WWII movies, And I don�t think the most Americans know this BUT The germans are speaking DUTCH instead of GERMAN in a lot of movies. I know the both Languages are a like but please when you are making a movie It isn�t that hard to hire the correct translater !!!!

And believe me even your precious Panzerlied is partly DUTCH..........

Intimidator

gregebowman

February 24th, 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Intimidator:
A good Warmovie for me is : historical acurate (is a 99% must, I can understand 1% writers creativity)

Such as The Longest Day or A Bridge to far, that are good movies. I even like the films about Patton and mc Arthur.

And offcourse (not a movie butr a TV serie) Band of Brothers, absolutly perfect and historical acurate.

And now comes the worst part of cheap WWII movies, And I don�t think the most Americans know this BUT The germans are speaking DUTCH instead of GERMAN in a lot of movies. I know the both Languages are a like but please when you are making a movie It isn�t that hard to hire the correct translater !!!!

And believe me even your precious Panzerlied is partly DUTCH..........

Intimidator I'll take your word for that. That's the main reason I took German in high school, though, was I wanted to know what the Germans were saying in all of these movies. But it's been over 20 years since I took German, and I never really used it after I graduated, so I don't remember too much of it. For practical purposes, I should have taken Spanish, but I didn't know back then that I would have a use for it.

Atrocities

February 24th, 2004, 11:42 PM

I recently watched a Bridge To Far and was wondering if there was ever a German Version of that movie. From what I could tell the Germans kicked the brits asses.

Intimidator

February 25th, 2004, 12:05 AM

You are right, the Brits are getting kicked out of Arnheim in that movie and in realtity offcourse.

And the city of Nymegen (20 km below Arnheim, Nymegen was liberated by the American 82nd Airborne during Market garden, so it was not a total failure) became a warzone for the Last 6 months of the war.

Intimidator

BTW. I was borne in Nymegen and life in Arnheim now (some 500 metre's from THE BRIDGE, it is still standing)

gregebowman

February 25th, 2004, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I recently watched a Bridge To Far and was wondering if there was ever a German Version of that movie. From what I could tell the Germans kicked the brits asses. They did. Operation Market Garden was a disaster for the Allies, and almost cost them the war. Fortunately, even though they lost that battle, the Allies eventually won the war. I wouldn't mind seeing a Version from the German's point of view, but even after 60 years, I think the German's are still sensitive about the war, and I don't know how a movie about a German victory would be taken. Maybe that's why they make films like Stalingrad, which was a defeat for the Germans.

gregebowman

February 25th, 2004, 08:26 PM

Just picked up The Longest Day at Wal-Mart for $5.50. I've been meaning to get this movie, but for some reason, hadn't picked it up yet. I tell you, you wait long enough, and just about any movie you can think of will wind up in their $5.50 bin.

Puke

February 25th, 2004, 08:35 PM

The Battle of Algiers is in a local theatre until the end of the week. Its not historical, but is something of a war movie. Historical fiction, really. Im going to try to see it on Friday. Or maybe tonight, if my power is out from the storm.

tesco samoa

February 25th, 2004, 10:11 PM

What was the movie about the Russian Tank crew in Afghan called ?

That was a great movie.... The Beast I think...

gregebowman

February 25th, 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
What was the movie about the Russian Tank crew in Afghan called ?

That was a great movie.... The Beast I think... Yes, the movie was called The Beast. Haven't seen it in awhile, though, but having the tank run over that peasant will remain in my memory banks for a long time. Talk about brutal!

Puke

February 25th, 2004, 11:57 PM

yeah, well, remind me not to get high on transmission fluid when i might need it to drive back home.

newbie123

March 22nd, 2004, 09:51 AM

sorry to bring up an old thread, but i just love WW2 debates and one thing in this thread couldn't be overlooked. The germans DID try and develop the nuclear bomb. And from what I read over the years, were very succesful, although I can't recall the sources off the top of my head. However, I do know that british commandos succesfully kept hard water out of the hands of the germans through raids on the ships transporting it.

It is late, and currently the only sources I could find aren't what you would call official historical sources. But anyway here are two of what I found http://www.ehistory.com/world/amit/display.cfm?amit_id=1502

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/kurzman.html

The next thing I want to touch on is the statement made about strategically bombing cities which have a citizen population. This type of boombing has a huge effect, and I guarantee no country would refrain from it should there be a world war 3. For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.(please try and leave your feelings about that conflict out of this, everyone has their opinions and noone will be able to convince the other of their point of view)

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is an attack against the population of a country is one of the most powerful attacks a country has at its disposal. It is also the most brutal. It cripples the economy, instills fear in the population, and hampers the war effort. If this wasn't the case, than a bunch of cave dwellers that know how to make a bomb wouldn't be threatening the most powerful country in the world right now.(and many others)

Another thing, many attrocities were committed by all sides during the war. The worse part about war is that no one is completely innocent. The simple fact of being at war forces a country to do things that it doesn't want to do.

sorry for bringing up an old thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ March 22, 2004, 07:58: Message edited by: newbie123 ]

Unknown_Enemy

March 22nd, 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by newbie123:

For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.
Wrong.
Prime minister Aznar was ousted because he was perceived to manipulate the bombing to his own ends. Two days after the bombing, one of the most used slogan from the demonstrations was "Our dead deserve the truth". In the meantime the gouvernment was still adamantly saying "it's ETA and nothing else", despite growing evidences pointing to radical islamists.

Intimidator

March 22nd, 2004, 03:38 PM

Agree with UE.

And don't forget 911, I didn't look to, me the Last couple of years, that the Americans are withdrawing their troops from Sauidi Arabia and Kuwait (one of the Al Qaida demands).
In the contrary, since 911 there are even more troops in the middle east.

So my opinion is that bombing cities has 'usualy' the oposite effect.

newbie123

March 22nd, 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by newbie123:

For current examples, think of the current terror strikes going on around the world. The most recent example being in spain. An attack placed at the right moment influenced a country's election, which resulted in the withdrawal of that country from the war in Iraq.
Wrong.
Prime minister Aznar was ousted because he was perceived to manipulate the bombing to his own ends. Two days after the bombing, one of the most used slogan from the demonstrations was "Our dead deserve the truth". In the meantime the gouvernment was still adamantly saying "it's ETA and nothing else", despite growing evidences pointing to radical islamists. <hr /></blockquote>Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here because honestly the only things I heard about this event were from US mass media. And like the media in any country, they are completely unbiased http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif . Propaganda sucks. However, can you argue that targeting civilian populations is not an effective startegy from the other things I said?

newbie123

March 22nd, 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Intimidator:
Agree with UE.

And don't forget 911, I didn't look to, me the Last couple of years, that the Americans are withdrawing their troops from Sauidi Arabia and Kuwait (one of the Al Qaida demands).
In the contrary, since 911 there are even more troops in the middle east.

So my opinion is that bombing cities has 'usualy' the oposite effect. Well as a person living in America, I can tell you that it did have the effect that al Quada was hoping for.I currently go to school in philadelphia, and anytime the terror alert is raised, it seems like a good deal of people(not all) become afraid. While right off the bat, everybody in this country was waving flags, had ribbons on their car, etc.

Now, 9/11 is mentioned occaisionally, but the will to fight seems to be diminishing. People here seem to think we have a better chance just sitting around trying to defend an attack, which may work at first but will ultimately fail because all it takes is for one man to get through to create chaos. And The U.S.'s joke of INS service will let that person through sooner than you think.

There may be even more troops in the middle east, but what are they doing? While Bush had the right idea of taking out the terrorist networks, he went about it the entirely wrong way. Its like using a broadsword to remove a cancer. It'll create a bigger mess before it gets the job done.( despite not agreeing with bush on everythign, I will still vote for him. IMO if Gore(or Kerry) was in office during 9/11, we would be in a lot worse position. Of course, that is all speculation and personal opinion. Worse thing about american politics, you can only choose the lesser of 2 evils)

That being said, sorry. I didn't want to go to current conflicts and politics because the "debates" usually become nothing more than name-calling contests and in the end it just creates a divide between people. I was just trying to prove that a small group of people willing to brutally attackt the population of countries can wage a somewhat succesful war against a country that would obliterate them in conventional war.

PvK

March 22nd, 2004, 08:28 PM

I don't think bombing civilian populations is an effective strategy overall, because it makes all sorts of people despise the perpetrators, eventually, and for good reason. One may not only want to overcome one's present enemy, but also to not end up being hated as an indescriminate killer of many innocents, which can lead to endless problems eventually. Moreover, hopefully one wants to actually avoid becoming a mass-murdering monster, as a goal in itself.

Defeating someone you are fighting because they are terrible, by means of becoming just as terrible, is in perhaps the most important way, a terrible defeat.

Kind of like protecting our freedom by first throwing it away (see Patriot Act).

PvK

[ March 22, 2004, 18:31: Message edited by: PvK ]

newbie123

March 22nd, 2004, 08:35 PM

Let me just say that I'm not condoning the strategy at all. I despise anyone who attacks innocent people, on the massive scale and the personal scale. I'm just trying to make the argument that to say its not an effective strategy is not smart.

primitive

March 22nd, 2004, 08:46 PM

This is an old topic for us newb, debatet several times over the years. I don't think anybody has ever tried to debate that targeting civilians is not effective or smart strategy. What there is dissidesence over, is the necessity and usefulness of the bombing of Dresden and the second nuke over Nagasaki. Both actions without any military value or any sort of propaganda value (IMHO).

PvK

March 22nd, 2004, 08:49 PM

It will certainly have effects, and they might seem to be positive at first, but in the long run I think they tend to be very negative, even from the perspective of someone like Hitler. If the Nazis hadn't bombed civilians, I don't think German cities likely would have been bombed so terribly, for example.

If Al Qaeda hadn't launched 9/11, I don't think the US would have invaded Afghanistan and perhaps not Iraq again, etc.

PvK

newbie123

March 22nd, 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
This is an old topic for us newb, debatet several times over the years. I don't think anybody has ever tried to debate that targeting civilians is not effective or smart strategy. What there is dissidesence over, is the necessity and usefulness of the bombing of Dresden and the second nuke over Nagasaki. Both actions without any military value or any sort of propaganda value (IMHO). ok sorry, that was the impression I got. I originally just wanted to show that Germany was developing nukes. I got sidetracked. The bombing of Nagasaki, I remember reading this, but can not get any sources as to its validity. Before the Hiroshima bomb, America asked for the unconditional surrender of Japan. They refused and we dropped the bomb. We asked again and they refused again so we dropped the bomb again. After that they surrendered. All I reme,ber about where I read it was it was in a book in the library of my grade school. Sorry to stir up the hornets nest. I'll drop it now, you won't hear from me anymore in this thread

[ March 22, 2004, 19:00: Message edited by: newbie123 ]

Intimidator

March 22nd, 2004, 11:27 PM

I've got 2 Wrongs here :

Error 1 - PvK, Great Brittain started the bombing campaign, it was a accident but they bombed Berlin first. After that the nazi's bombed Londen. And the the hell opened for all the european cities.....

Error 2 - Newbie 123, I don�t see the point why we should not hear from you anymore. It�s an discussion, and that�s what I like. To discus different opinions.

See ya,

zen.

March 23rd, 2004, 06:42 PM

I agree with PvK on the Patriot Act thing (shudder), but regarding newbie's post about the reaction of the President to 9/11, I think people place too much on one person. Presidents have a whole host of advisors and analysts to simply tell them what the best course of action would be, so regardless of who is in office, I think the response would have been appropriate (although in varying levels of intensity, to be sure).

As for the invasions (especially of Iraq), the current (Bush) administration has said that these plans were discussed back in the previous Clinton administration, and the Clinton folks said they inherited it from the first Bush administration as a contingency after the first Gulf war. I'd probably worry more about Congress, which has many members who have been there for decades and decades, and who also have the tenure and authority to pass what they want through...one of the reasons so much seems to be happening also is that both executive and legislative branches are heavily aligned, facilitating things for everyone.

And for anyone reading into that, no, I'm not praising or denouncing either of the precious parties. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I -try- not to delve into politics... it's such a departure from my ideal of 'representation' nowadays it's not even funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

In WWII news and movies, I don't know how historically accurate it was (I'm not the war mavens that you guys are), but I really liked Enemy at the Gates. Band of Brothers is on my list of things to see, so it'll be cool as I read someone here had mentioned it was dead-on historically accurate.

Probably my more shocking discoveries of WWII was what happened to Berlin -after- the Red Army hit it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1939174.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4446716-102275,00.html

zen