The Allied Terror bombings

[JustinYT]

So what's every ones feelings and opinions about the allied terror bombings of Germany?? Many names were used during the war strategic bombing, area bombing and some others but "terror bombing" is the most well known. I can understand the bombing of cities/areas that have a substantial industrial presence and other military targets. When you look at the transition from military targets to factories industrial sites harbors and then to the destruction of the workers homes, it takes a somewhat dark turn. During the war it was more or less told to the public the bombings were only targeting Germany's ability to produce war material an their ability to transport soldiers etc, until after the Dresden raid when British Air Commodore Colin McKray Grierson let an off hand comment slip that the raid also helped "destroy what was left of German morale", to which it ended up in the papers as "Allied air bosses have made the long awaited decision to adopt deliberate terror bombing of great German population centers as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler's doom." Me personally I've never liked the idea of deliberately bombing major civilian areas, especially that the general idea of it is that you can destroy the moral of the enemy populace to the point they force the leadership to end the war, obviously this was not going to happen in Germany. The bombing of Hamburg was probably one of the worst raids, while it did have legitimate military targets and industrial targets the resulting civilians death of somewhere of 45-55,000 civilians killed mostly caused by the largest firestorm of the war is horrendous as well as an un-foreseen event of a fire tornado that sucked up a lot of oxygen killing many hiding in the bomb shelters. Dresden is obviously the most well known example of terror bombing, with the second largest fire storm of the war claiming the lives of 20-35,000 civilians. While Dresden was listed as the 7th largest industrial manufacturing city in Germany, what Dresden primarily manufactured for the war had little to no effect on the war at the time it was bombed in Feb March and April of '45. Some of the other stated reasons for the raid was to assist the Soviet advance an that a possible counter attack on the Soviet offensive could be launched from Dresden but in all honesty in 1945 there was nothing that was going to stop the Red Army.
The fact that Dresden was the 7th largest manufacturing city an yet it was left untouched until 1945 should say a lot, as well it's hard to believe that the Allies knowing that it was one of the larger cities that was left untouched through out the war that it had become an city with a large number of refugees something in the park of 300,000 refugees fled there. In 1953 the USAF put out a report justifying the raid, but critics like a journalist named Alex McKee began to point out that,military barracks that were listed as a target were in fact a long way out of the city an were never targeted nor attacked, that some "hutted camps" listed as a military target were refugee camps, also the autobahn bridge to the west of Dresden was not target or attacked nor were a railway bridge that went over the Elbe river was neither targeted or attacked. McKee went on further to state that "The bomber commanders were not really interested in any purely military or economic targets, which was just as well, for they knew very little about Dresden; the RAF even lacked proper maps of the city. What they were looking for was a big built up area which they could burn, and that Dresden possessed in full measure". Terror bombing in my opinion has always been a bad idea, and at times can make you no better than your enemy, luckily it is no longer accepted to purposely bomb civilian populations

[Michael Kenny]

So what's every ones feelings and opinions about the allied terror bombings of Germany??

There was no such thing as Allied Terror Bombing so the matter of 'feelings' is moot.



By the way you got the Air Commodores name wrong.

[Rob Stuart]

Many names were used during the war strategic bombing, area bombing and some others but "terror bombing" is the most well known.

No, it is hardly ever called "terror bombing". The other names you have used are much more common, along with "the bombing of Germany" or "the bombing of German cities". The morality of the bombing of German cities has been a subject of debate over the years but calling it "terror bombing" right off the bat when trying to start another such debate here is inappropriate. For one thing it would imply that the Allied bomber crews were all terrorists.

[WalterS]

I echo the previous comments that the Allied bombing campaign in Europe is almost never called "terror bombing." With regards to the remarks about Dresden (here we go again)
Frederick Taylor's "Dresden, Tuesday, February 13, 1945" clearly illustrates Dresden's value as a military target.

1. Dresden was a legitimate military target. Taylor shows that over 100 shops and factories were making war-related materials in Feb 45.

2. Dresden was a legitimate communications target. Taylor shows that in Feb 45 some twenty-eight troop transport trains passed though Dresden each day.

3. The Russians specifically requested that the RAF and USAAF bomb Dresden and other transport hubs.

[Delta Tank]

To all,

I think it is also important to remember that the Germans could of surrendered at any time!

Mike

[phylo_roadking]

Justin, there are a couple of things astray with your original post above, that would bear you going and doing a LOT more reading up on;

Dresden is obviously the most well known example of terror bombing, with the second largest fire storm of the war claiming the lives of 20-35,000 civilians.

No it didn't; that was the "next day", Nazi propaganda version of the death poll. In fact - two years ago the German Historical Commission officially reduced the figure BACK down towards the figure originally given to Goebbels - to whit, c.18,500. For propaganda value he merely doubled the roughly 15,000 figure he was given...and there was decades of arguing over it since, until the Germans themselves reduced the figure back down to the 18,500 mark.

The fact that Dresden was the 7th largest manufacturing city an yet it was left untouched until 1945 should say a lot, as well it's hard to believe that the Allies knowing that it was one of the larger cities that was left untouched through out the war

Thge planned campaign against a dozen or so of Germany's largest untouched cities was intended originally for 1944, but was postponed for various reasons and on various occasions. What it says was that the Allies had quite a lot else to do with a really quite scarce commodity, the RAF's Heavy Force.

McKee went on further to state that "The bomber commanders were not really interested in any purely military or economic targets, which was just as well, for they knew very little about Dresden; the RAF even lacked proper maps of the city. What they were looking for was a big built up area which they could burn, and that Dresden possessed in full measure".

That one has been put to bed quite thoroughly too, with RAF veterans' accounts. They were fully briefed, and had both positive, and alternate, targets in the area.

a journalist named Alex McKee began to point out that,military barracks that were listed as a target were in fact a long way out of the city an were never targeted nor attacked, that some "hutted camps" listed as a military target were refugee camps, also the autobahn bridge to the west of Dresden was not target or attacked nor were a railway bridge that went over the Elbe river was neither targeted or attacked.

As for not bombing precision targets...the RAF didn't actually DO that by night any more - they had spent three years NOT doing it successfully, that's exactly why they moved to area bombing. Ask that one of the USAAF raid on Dresden the day after, not of the RAF...but it just so happens that it's very hard to hit precision targets like roiad bridges from the sort of altitudes that heavy bombers HAD to attack from...to avoid being peppered and brought down by their own bomb fragments...

Do you know how high a 1,000 pound bomb will throw bomb fragments? 5,000 feet... So guess what the minimum height for dropping 1,000lb bombs was...

In fact - while the railway bridge over the Elbe may not have been attacked - the railway junction and station inside the city of Dresden was the specific target for one of the RAF bombing waves.

[JustinYT]

I still stand closer to the 20,000 mark as in a article in spiegel in 08 which referred to that of the German Historical Commission which stated 18,000 to no more than 25,000. The next day Nazi propaganda phylo called the 20,000 to 35,000 is off, since the Nazi's claimed that 200,000 were killed which was put on a leaflet along with pictures of two burned up children, with the words "Dresden Massacre of Refugees". Frederick Taylor states that "there is good reason to believe that later in March copies of or extracts from an official police report were leaked to the neutral press by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, doctored with an extra zero to make the total dead from the raid 202,040". So 20-35,000 is not a real propaganda figure since other cities like Hamburg had higher death tolls. In talking about Dresden I was not just including the RAF as I said "Allied" which the USAF was involved, an yes while the RAF did night time raids the US also did day time raids to conduct strategic bombing , an yet targets like the railway bridge over the Elbe, the autobahn bridge were never targeted nor attacked. The argument of do you know how high a 1,000 pound bomb throws fragments doesn't hold weight as the Allies had bombed other bridges since your just dropping a lot of bombs on that specific area. Yes the railway junction an station were attacked, but in March or April but not in the original. I have not claimed that Dresden wasn't a military target, only that the importance of some of the targets may have been over played, as historian Sonke Neitzel stated "it is difficult to find any evidence in German documents that the destruction of Dresden had any consequences worth mentioning on the Eastern Front. The industrial plants of Dresden played no significant role in German industry at this stage in the war". Now as to calling it "terror bombing" when you begin to include in your targets the homes of the workers who work in the factories an to crush the cvilian morale, an that by bombing a place you will cause mass panic an masses of people trying to flee a city so that you can jam up road way an railways, you are in fact causing terror among a population, especially in a city like Dresden that was swelling with refugees from the eastern front.

[phylo_roadking]

an yes while the RAF did night time raids the US also did day time raids to conduct strategic bombing , an yet targets like the railway bridge over the Elbe, the autobahn bridge were never targeted nor attacked. The argument of do you know how high a 1,000 pound bomb throws fragments doesn't hold weight as the Allies had bombed other bridges since your just dropping a lot of bombs on that specific area.

Really? What bridges did the 8th Air Force's B17s target? As opposed to medium bombers or tactical? I take it you appreciate that there were different forces for different types/classes of target?

Yes the railway junction an station were attacked, but in March or April but not in the original.

Incorrect; the second RAF attack wave on February 14th had its target shifted on arrival by the Pathfinders, among other locations to right on top of the Hauptbahnhof...the pathfiners of No.8 group Bomber Command dropping their markers on either side of the railway station. This was done because while the Old Town was burning merrily and could be seen from 60+ miles away by the time the second wave arrived, the main railway station and the areas downwind of it and on the other side of the firestorm hadn't been touched...

It certainly was then; in 24 minutes, 529 Lancasters dropped 1,800+ tons of bombs on the main railway station and on the other side of the firestorm, in and around the Grosser Garten park.

Now as to calling it "terror bombing" when you begin to include in your targets the homes of the workers who work in the factories an to crush the cvilian morale, an that by bombing a place you will cause mass panic an masses of people trying to flee a city so that you can jam up road way an railways, you are in fact causing terror among a population, especially in a city like Dresden that was swelling with refugees from the eastern front.

I don't think you quite grasp what the Allies were trying to do. They didn't actually WANT german workers and their families to just flee to somewhere else - they wanted German workers discommoded enough to not go into work, and to have to spend a few days replacing furniture, clothing, ration books, personal papers etc, arranging new accomodation for their families - and to put the German administrative system to the burden of repeatedly having to accomodate all this. What's the point of bombing a german worker and his family out of one place...only to have them pop up and go to work somewhere else?

And yes - it's about degrading morale - but not from the POV of creating "terror", from the point of view of encouraging german workers to march down the Unter Den Linden with their pichforks and puddling irons held high, demnanding that Hitler make peace because they can't take any more. Why do you think modern governments spend so much time in protecting themselves from all levels of terrorist and military attack (if possible)...but nowhere near the same amount on protecting you and me? It's because at some point, OUR morale would break, not the government's...and WE would supposedly be beating down the doors of the nearest bunker demanding they make peace.

If anything - the Allies were well in advance of historical events in that they were preparing to suffer nuclear levels of destruction on London during WWII...but also doing nuclear levels of damage TO Germany and hoping for the same breakdown in public morale as planners foresaw during the Cold War.

[wm]

The industrial plants of Dresden played no significant role in German industry at this stage in the war". Now as to calling it "terror bombing" when you begin to include in your targets the homes of the workers who work in the factories an to crush the cvilian morale, an that by bombing a place you will cause mass panic an masses of people trying to flee a city so that you can jam up road way an railways, you are in fact causing terror among a population, especially in a city like Dresden that was swelling with refugees from the eastern front.

In case of an air-raid alert everyone was to go to air-shelters, not to flee a city. In fact it was forbidden.
If there were not enough air-shelters those responsible for that should have been punished. It wasn't a fault of the Allies the population wasn't protected adequately. Usually it was, and the civilian casualties were low.

The Hague conventions didn't forbid bombing of houses, workers, railways or causing panics/terror. They simply say you should be nice to the enemy population under you control, and:

[...]bombardment, by whatever means, of towns [...] which are undefended is prohibited.

and nothing more. The factories of Dresden could have produced bubble gum only, it still didn't matter. Dresden was defended, in other words wasn't declared an open city.
But anyway it's hardly believable that one of the largest cities in Germany didn't produce anything militarily useful. Those Germans must have been incredibly inept allowing such a waste of industrial resources.
The war was still going on at that time, and about a half a million of allied soldiers and civilians would die before its end. There was no reason to let up the pressure.

And the war had been lost already, almost the entire industrial world was fighting against Germany, the Allies held complete control of the skies. In those circumstances it was the duty of the German government to surrender, as they did in 1918.
They didn't, and because of that, they and only they are responsible for the casualties in Dresden, not to mention the slaughter that was still going on unabated till the very last day of the war.

[phylo_roadking]

[...]bombardment, by whatever means, of towns [...] which are undefended is prohibited.

...remembering that that's from the Hague Rules on Land Warfare. Many people cite it in discussions on strategic bombing - but in reality it was only to do with artillery bombardment...like the 1870-71 longrange bombardment of Paris by the Prussians etc.. There were several years spent in the 1930s trying to get agreement on a draft "Convention on Aerial Bombardment" - thus confirming that the HRLW didn't apply to aerial warfare - but the process failed. It's often cited too as "proof" that strategic bombing was against the laws of war...except it wasn't, the draft Convention hadn't been accepted.

In fact, as well as Dresden being "defended", both by AA and nearby fighter fields as well as shelters etc...

The factories of Dresden could have produced bubble gum only, it still didn't matter. Dresden was defended, in other words wasn't declared an open city

...there are also very specific provisions in the HRLW regarding the time period that should elapse between belligerents' troops passing through a town or city and it being regarded as undefended by them...

And IIRC a U.S. Army officer POW confirmed that two German divisions passed through the city by rail the night before, well inside the HRLW-mandated period Thus making Dresden a "military" target in that sense too.

[wm]

Well, it does say: "The attack or bombardment by whatever means".
It would be easy to exclude balloons, dirigibles, and Wright Flyers there. But they didn't do it, despite the fact the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibited, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature.
It seems by 1907 they got to like the idea of launching of projectiles by any method from balloons...

The never adopted Hague Rules of Air Warfare clearly limit the means of of injuring the enemy from air. I would say that proves such limits were needed, and were needed because they are not present in the earlier conventions.

[JustinYT]

I understand what the Allies were trying to do by degrading the morale of the German people, an i doubt people were replacing furniture an clothing when there was no where to put it since their homes were gone, but they never achieved the effect they wanted the German people never rose up an demanded Hitler an the Nazi's surrender. From what I can tell the bombing of cities to break morale an have the people rise up has never worked nor happen, the British people didn't demand that England back out during the blitz, if anything it shows how resilient people are in general, hell it took two nuclear bombs before Japan surrendered.
I still cant buy into considering the homes of factory workers legitimate targets, using incendiaries to to create firestorms which engulf everything give off toxic gas/fumes an if enough it is dropped you get what happened in Hamburg a firestorm tornado which sucked up a lot of oxygen killing those who were able to get into the shelters.
From what I've read about the Hague an the discussions it does appear that they saw that things like bombing civilians from the air was something that shouldn't be done but that the majority could come to a universal way to interpret what should and shouldn't be allowed. Did an international understanding ever come to pass or is the bombing of civilian populations something that most countries just agree to not do without it being on paper?

[Michael Kenny]

the British people didn't demand that England back out during the blitz, if anything it shows how resilient people are in general,

The Mass Observation studies done during the Blitz did indeed find the bombing had an effect. They just never admitted it.

http://www.ampltd.co.uk/digital_guides/ ... art-7.aspx

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/40 ... le-in-1940

The same applied in Germany.

You should consider yourself lucky that bombing of civilains was not a 'War crime' or there would be a lot of German examples. Basically your argument is 'Its not fair. The Allies did it much better. I dont want to play any more'

the German people never rose up an demanded Hitler an the Nazi's surrender.

Its a myth Germany fought to the very end. You can find photos of many who did want to surrender swinging from lamposts in Berlin. Berlin was not Germany In total over 100 active German divisons who had fled into the area between the Allied armies meekly surrendered. There are plenty of clips on You Tube of vast columns of tanks and trucks streaming west in headlong flight. They did not fight to the last man or bullet.

[JustinYT]

Not denying they had an effect on either side, but the desired effect was not achieved, seeing as how the goal is to degrade morale to the point to where people would rise up an demand that their government withdraw from there war. I've seen no specific instances where this happened, theres a difference between having an effect an your people rising up an demanding you end the war.
My argument is far from its not fair, as the topic is about the allied bombings of Germany, as I've stated before I understand the bombing of industrial factories an military targets. What I said was I didnt agree with bombing civilians in general regardless of what country they come from or what side they stood on. If you were trying to paint my argument as "oh the poor Germans" your sadly just wrong and missed the whole point of the post to being with.
Your last part I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, as this is mostly about the targeting of civilian areas, an that the desired goal in part was the breaking of morale to the point the people rise up an demand an end to the war, not the military

[Michael Kenny]

If you were trying to paint my argument as "oh the poor Germans" your sadly just wrong and missed the whole point of the post to being with.

You are on a number of threads and the thrust of all your arguments is how badly Germans were treated. I have not missed point of your posts.

Your last part I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, as this is mostly about the targeting of civilian areas, an that the desired goal in part was the breaking of morale to the point the people rise up an demand an end to the war, not the military

You said the bombing did not make Germany surrender. We can not make a firm link with bombing but the surrender did indeed happen whilst a substantial portion of the German war machine was intact and capable of inflicting serious damage on the Allies.

the desired goal in part was the breaking of morale to the point the people rise up an demand an end to the war

The desired goal was to attrite the German war machine . The German air defence system consumed the bulk of the German hi-tech industry. All that was unavailable to the Ground Forces. The number of 8'8cm guns dedicated to AA defence shows just how much effort was wasted. Wasted because it never stopped the bombing. War is not one-on-one fight between 2 evenly matched foes. You crush your opponent by destroying his ability to wage war. It worked