Rotterdam 14 May 1940: Tactics or Terrorism?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Rotterdam 14 May 1940: Tactics or Terrorism?

#1

Post by tonyh » 01 Mar 2005, 19:12

[This thread was split off from the "Was Dresden Bombing 'Terrorism"?" thread and retitled by the moderator -- DT]
The bombing of Rotterdam is, too, since the purpose was to force the enemy to surrender under threat of extreme destruction.
Actually, Curioso, the purpose of the raid was to hit the Port area that was landing supplies to the enemy. Rotterdam was also the subject of raids by the allies on several occasions by the Allies during 1943 and 1944. And Rotterdam suffered far more damage from these raids than did did from the Luftwaffe raid in 1940.

Tony

Curioso
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 13:07
Location: Pagnà

#2

Post by Curioso » 02 Mar 2005, 10:56

tonyh wrote:
The bombing of Rotterdam is, too, since the purpose was to force the enemy to surrender under threat of extreme destruction.
Actually, Curioso, the purpose of the raid was to hit the Port area that was landing supplies to the enemy.

Tony
Really? I didn't know that. I'm curious: could you quote your sources for this? And by the way, could you confirm, or deny, that the German ultimatum for the surrender included an explicit threat of an air bombing of the city?

While I'd be glad to know about your sources for the above, the gist of my post is of course strengthened by your correction. Assuming the Germans really did also want to bomb the port too, the consequence is that the actual advantage of direct military nature they sought was tiny if compared to the main and most important advantage: the morale-sapping, i.e., terrorist advantage they gained. Rotterdam surrendered at once (though not fast enough for those eager Luftwaffe boys) and the whole Netherlands did too, in short order.
That's exactly what my post sought to show: even when an act of war is aimed at a specific military advantage, the advantage made of the morale component (i.e., terrorism) is always present, in varying degree. So, by the definition provided by the original poster, all acts of war would be acts of terrorism. Which, as I said, does not do us a great deal of good, does it?


tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

#3

Post by tonyh » 02 Mar 2005, 18:22

Curioso wrote:
tonyh wrote:
The bombing of Rotterdam is, too, since the purpose was to force the enemy to surrender under threat of extreme destruction.
Actually, Curioso, the purpose of the raid was to hit the Port area that was landing supplies to the enemy.

Tony
Really? I didn't know that. I'm curious: could you quote your sources for this? And by the way, could you confirm, or deny, that the German ultimatum for the surrender included an explicit threat of an air bombing of the city?

While I'd be glad to know about your sources for the above, the gist of my post is of course strengthened by your correction. Assuming the Germans really did also want to bomb the port too, the consequence is that the actual advantage of direct military nature they sought was tiny if compared to the main and most important advantage: the morale-sapping, i.e., terrorist advantage they gained. Rotterdam surrendered at once (though not fast enough for those eager Luftwaffe boys) and the whole Netherlands did too, in short order.
That's exactly what my post sought to show: even when an act of war is aimed at a specific military advantage, the advantage made of the morale component (i.e., terrorism) is always present, in varying degree. So, by the definition provided by the original poster, all acts of war would be acts of terrorism. Which, as I said, does not do us a great deal of good, does it?
It is possible to confirm that a detachment of German officials met with Dutch officials to warn them of the attack on Rotterdam and that they urged a surrender in the light of a futile attempt to remain garrisoned in the City. This doesn't take from the fact that the Luftwaffe primarilly targeted tactical objectives, which a sea port is. This is available in numerous books. As I have stated in other threads, the Luftwaffe's main reason for existance was to support the land army, as flying artillery and simply bombing the centre of a town to pieces doesn't help the Wehrmacht one iota, either in Rotterdam or Stalingrad. This doesn't mean that the Luftwaffe didn't engage in the use of bombing as an object of terror, when it was so ordered. The night bombing of London and the the bombing over Lenningrad are examples of that.

The target area, AFAIR, I've read in Cajus Bekker's The Luftwaffe War Diaries and seen it mentioned in other books regarding the Luftwaffe. I'll have a look at home and see if I can come up with the unit involved and the tactical objective.

Also and this is from memory too, the reason for the fire that swept through the port of Rotterdam, was because the incediaries the 30 (some say 60) or so Dornier Do17's (some say Heinkels) were carrying hit combustible food stores in the warehouses and quickly set fire to the wooden areas of the port. The volunteer fire service were unable to combat the fire and it spread. The vast majority of the 300 to 800 people who died, died from the fire. I've seen one laughable website claim a figure of 30.000 people dead. I was rolling on the floor at that one.

The Luftwaffe's bombing of Rotterdam is constantly invoked as justification for the RAF's area bombing of German towns and Cities, but its a misplaced comparison, IMO. But great propaganda value in inherent within the story and its still useful today. Even the Rotterdam section, on the Holland Sentinel website states that "...bombing in May 1940 flattened the heart of Rotterdam" and "...one of the few structures to survive the German Luftwaffe's carpet bombing of Rotterdam at the outset of World War II".

This is bunkum. 30+ (or even 60+) Dorniers or Heinkels or Ju88's and their payload simply CANNOT carpet bomb anything.

If anyone has other info, I would be glad to hear it.

Tony

Curioso
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 13:07
Location: Pagnà

#4

Post by Curioso » 03 Mar 2005, 10:25

tonyh wrote: It is possible to confirm that a detachment of German officials met with Dutch officials to warn them of the attack on Rotterdam and that they urged a surrender in the light of a futile attempt to remain garrisoned in the City.

(snip)

The Luftwaffe's bombing of Rotterdam is constantly invoked as justification for the RAF's area bombing of German towns and Cities, but its a misplaced comparison, IMO.
Thank you for all the information you posted.

I have read Bekker's book some time ago and it's not at hand now, but I wouldn't be surprised if what the Dutch officers heard as a threat, comes out as kind, solicitous advice there. But that's a matter of nuances, or of points of view.

What I'd rather point out is that in this thread, we are trying to answer to the question: was the bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism? In order to answer, we should not be looking for _quantity_ data, but for quality. Certainly the repeated Allied bombing of Rotterdam caused more destruction than the German 1940 attack, and I won't argue about how many casualties did the Luftwaffe cause in Stalingrad. But that's not the point.

Look at Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber". He managed to smuggle explosives aboard an airliner, but was unsuccessful in detonating them. Therefore he caused zero casualties. But I think we'll all call that an (attempted) act of terrorism.

So, you are right that Rotterdam can't be compared with Dresden (or Coventry with Hamburg) in terms of casualty count or damage inflicted. But that's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is that

a) Rotterdam, Dresden, Coventry, Hamburg etc. all contained objectives that, if hit, would give the attacker a strictly military advantage, but
b) by hitting all of those cities, the attacker also obtained, or sought to obtain, a morale-effect advantage.

So if we deem that any act of war, directly or indirectly, has an effect on the enemy's morale, and if we deem that such an effect is terrorism, then the bombing of Dresden was an act of terrorism - just like the bombing of Rotterdam, Coventry, Hamburg etc., and just like the sinking of the Tirpitz or the capture of Odessa.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#5

Post by redcoat » 03 Mar 2005, 19:48

tonyh wrote:]
The Luftwaffe's bombing of Rotterdam is constantly invoked as justification for the RAF's area bombing of German towns and Cities, but its a misplaced comparison, IMO.
I agree with you (must be a first :wink: )

Rotterdam did cause a change in the RAF's bombing policy, but it wasn't area bombing. The British government after Rotterdam allowed the RAF to target military and military related targets within Germany, but this wasn't area bombing, If the bomber couldn't find the target or another military related target( ie railway yards) they were expected to bring their bombs back.
It wasn't until after the attack on Coventry, in which the Germans used the tactics of area bombing and incenderies in an effort to create a firestorm, that the RAF noting the success of this attack, copied it in their attacks on Germany, though on a larger and more effective scale.
So if the RAF requires any justification for area bombing, its Coventry not Rotterdam.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

#6

Post by tonyh » 04 Mar 2005, 21:31

Curioso wrote:
tonyh wrote: It is possible to confirm that a detachment of German officials met with Dutch officials to warn them of the attack on Rotterdam and that they urged a surrender in the light of a futile attempt to remain garrisoned in the City.

(snip)

The Luftwaffe's bombing of Rotterdam is constantly invoked as justification for the RAF's area bombing of German towns and Cities, but its a misplaced comparison, IMO.
Thank you for all the information you posted.

I have read Bekker's book some time ago and it's not at hand now, but I wouldn't be surprised if what the Dutch officers heard as a threat, comes out as kind, solicitous advice there. But that's a matter of nuances, or of points of view.

What I'd rather point out is that in this thread, we are trying to answer to the question: was the bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism? In order to answer, we should not be looking for _quantity_ data, but for quality. Certainly the repeated Allied bombing of Rotterdam caused more destruction than the German 1940 attack, and I won't argue about how many casualties did the Luftwaffe cause in Stalingrad. But that's not the point.

Look at Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber". He managed to smuggle explosives aboard an airliner, but was unsuccessful in detonating them. Therefore he caused zero casualties. But I think we'll all call that an (attempted) act of terrorism.

So, you are right that Rotterdam can't be compared with Dresden (or Coventry with Hamburg) in terms of casualty count or damage inflicted. But that's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is that

a) Rotterdam, Dresden, Coventry, Hamburg etc. all contained objectives that, if hit, would give the attacker a strictly military advantage, but
b) by hitting all of those cities, the attacker also obtained, or sought to obtain, a morale-effect advantage.

So if we deem that any act of war, directly or indirectly, has an effect on the enemy's morale, and if we deem that such an effect is terrorism, then the bombing of Dresden was an act of terrorism - just like the bombing of Rotterdam, Coventry, Hamburg etc., and just like the sinking of the Tirpitz or the capture of Odessa.
Hi Curioso, I have looked quickly through some books at home on the Rotterdam subject, but detailed info is actually quite hard to come by. Becker's book is also not available to me at present. Unfortunately, I cannot come up with a quote or a target area definition. The web has proved fruitless too. One website simply states that the official Luftwaffe records say that "Artillery positions" were the target for the He111's of KG54 that day.

The point that Rotterdam was NOT an example of "terror bombing" however is borne out by this from Adolf Galland who says that the
"Luftwaffe's target was to bomb the defenders" and "to clear a path fpr an assualt crossing of the river. German units in the City General Rudolf Schmidt's XXXIX Pan Korps, whose troops were supporting the megre 7th Fallschrimjager troops who landed earlier (emphasis added) were told to "light flares" at the approaching bombers."

KG54 were to divert to secondary targets if this signal was observed. Obst Lackner's formation of 57 He111's failed to see the signal and and dropped their load of 158 500LB and 1,150LB HE bombs on their assigned targets.

The resulting fires and destruction of buildings occured quite by accident and was not the intended result. In fact Galland says that if the desired effect was to destroy the City, far more aircraft would have been sortied and incendiaries would have been loaded.

Its quite obvious that the intent was NOT to destroy the City or launch a "terror" attack.

Liddel Hart also says...
"Meanwhile the German bombing of Rotterdam on May 14th and of other Cities subsequently had begun to change the climate of opinion in Britain and diminish repugnance to the idea of indiscriminate bombing. That change of feeling was much accentuated by the bombs that were dropped in error on London on August 24th. All these cases were, actually, products of misinterpretation-if quite natural ones-as the Luftwaffe were still operating under orders to conform to the old and longstanding rules of bombardment and exceptions hitherto arose from navigational errors. Effective British propaganda too had a major part to play, the government stated that 35.000 people were killed and the entire City destroyed(emphasis added)

Much of the myth of Rotterdam being a "Terror Attack" comes from that contempory British propaganda, the reality of the situation is far far different to the 35.000 casualty figure and the 'entire City destroyed' 100 medium bombers cannot set out to destroy and entire City with less that 1,400LB's of HE ordinance.

However, its interesting to note though that afterward the RAF bombers based in France started bombing industrial Cities in the Ruhr. While these attacks themselves were not "terror attacks" either, in the same manner as Dresden or Hamburg, the opposition to bombing such targets that existed beforehand, was being effectively melted away.

That Dresden is an act of "terrorism" is another story though. It is clear that attacking the centre of a City and killing civilians will produce "terror", but whether its "terrorism" in the modern accepted sense of the word is another story. I would certainly class the RAF's night campaign over Germany towns and cities as "terror attacks" as the desired effect and in fact the only realistic outcome to be expected from such a campaign would be civilian deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure. Any attempt at actually trying to specifically target tactical or strategic elements is rendered useless at night.

The RAF could have, if they so wished, targeted and destroyed effectively the limited Strategic elements within and on the outskirts of the City with a massed attack in daylight, in fact they could have bombed these targets with impunity and minimised the death toll and the needless firestorm that engulfed the City. The Luftwaffe had long since ceased to be an effective foil by 1945.

Churchill's memo above clearly outlines his own discomfort at such terror attacks, even if he did withdraw the comments. They still stand. Churchill is displaying a discomfort with the RAF's entire campaign, not just the attack on Dresden. Perhaps he feared a backlash and was simply covering his own arse as he was want to do.

"(a) Rotterdam, Dresden, Coventry, Hamburg etc. all contained objectives that, if hit, would give the attacker a strictly military advantage, but
(b) by hitting all of those cities, the attacker also obtained, or sought to obtain, a morale-effect advantage."


Unfortunately (b) is wrong in the case of Rotterdam, which is what I have been arguing as the intended effect of the Luftwaffe's sorties over Rotterdam that that was NOT to caused "Terror", but to support the land attack and German elements with in the City. The is enforced by Gallands statements above, the number of aircraft used and the fact that KG54 were carrying only high explosives and no incendiaries.

I can't agree that the targeting of any element produces morale sapping consequnences. There is a HUGE difference in attacking a U-boat pen or other military targets and simply pouring bombs into the centre of a hugely populated City, a la Dresden. The latter has a far bigger morale drain than the former.

I'll continue to find the target area order for KG54 on May 14th. I know it exists somewhere.

Tony

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#7

Post by David Thompson » 07 Mar 2005, 06:51

14th of May 1940
http://www.humobisten.nl/weblog/archives/000063.html

The Battle of Grebbeburg
http://www.grebbeberg.nl/grebbeberg/uk_summary.html

Air Power, Armies, and the War in the West, 1940
http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfh/harmon_seri ... rmon32.doc

Holland
http://ww2.boom.ru/West/holland.html

Here is the account of the bombing raid given in Cajus Bekker, The Luftwaffe War Diaries, Ballantine Books, New York: 1966, pp. 139-148:
That was the situation when, early on May 13th, the advance party of Lieutenant-General Hubicki's 9th Panzer Division rolled across the Moerdijk bridge to the cheers of the investing paratroops. Dordrecht was at last subdued, and in the evening the first tanks reached the southern end of the Maas bridges in Rotterdam.

III/IR 16 still held the crossing against all odds. The Willems bridge was now under heavy artillery fire. The Dutch even tried to reach it with gun-boats, but failed. German losses had been heavy, and Lieutenant Colonel von Choltitz was ordered to withdraw his sixty-man bridgehead of mixed infantrymen, sappers and paratroops under First Lieutenant Kerfin from the northern bank. But he failed utterly to reach them, for now not even a mouse could cross the bridge alive; either by day or night.

At 16.00 hours on May 13th two civilians began waving great white flags at the southern end of the Willem bridge. As the firing ceased, they advanced hesitantly. One was the vicar of Noorder Eiland—the island in the Maas occupied by the Germans—the other a merchant. Von Choltitz bade them take themselves to the Dutch city commandant and emphasised that only by capitulating could Rotterdam be saved from devastation. In the evening the emissaries returned,

140 THE LUFTWAFFE DIARIES

trembling with fear. Their own countrymen had informed them that their closely populated island would be flattened by artillery that very night. If, Colonel Scharroo had said, the German commander had any proposals to make, he should send officers. He did not treat with civilians.

Destiny then took its course. Undoubtedly the Rotterdam garrison could effectively bar any further German advance to the north. From the strictly military point of view there was no reason why it should yield.

Understandably the German high command could equally press for a swift conclusion of the operation. It wanted Holland "cleaned up" as soon as possible in order to free forces for the main thrust through Belgium into northern France. Furthermore the 18th Army, as it attacked Holland on May 13th, feared that British landings were imminent. Thus at 18.45 General von Kuechler gave the order "to break the resistance at Rotterdam by every means".

The tank attack across the Willems bridge was fixed for 15.30 hours on May 14th, and would be preceded by artillery fire and a pinpoint bombing raid on a limited area at the northern end to paralyse the enemy's power of defence.

Meanwhile, the supreme command of the forces at Rotterdam had passed from Lieutenant-General Student to the general commanding XXXIX Panzer Corps, Rudolf Schmid The latter was instructed by the 18th Army commander, von Kuechler, "to use all means to prevent unnecessary bloodshed amongst the Dutch population" Accordingly, in the evening of May 13th, Schmidt drew up a new demand for Dutch capitulation, and had it translated. Unless resistance was terminated without delay, he wrote to the city commandant, he would have to use all means to break it.

"That," he added, "could result in the complete destruction of the city. I beg you, as a man with a sense of responsibility to take the necessary steps to prevent this."

The fateful May 14, 1940, dawned. From now on hour, every minute, counted. At 10.40 the German emissaries, Captain Hoerst and First-Lieutenant Dr. Plutzar interpreter, crossed the Willems bridge with the letter.
they were taken to a command post, where they had to wait.

ASSAULT ON THE WEST 141

Then," blindfolded, they were driven through the city by zigzag routes and finally fetched up in an underground vault. ' "We had a long and anguishing wait," said Dr. Plutzar, "well aware that precious time was ticking away."

At last, at 12.40, Colonel Scharroo received them. They at once informed him that only immediate capitulation could save the' city from heavy air bombardment.

But Scharroo felt he could not make the decision alone. He would have to get in touch with his supreme commander at The Hague. He told the Germans he would send over an emissary at 14.00 hours.

As soon as General Schmidt heard of this -offer—the last chance—he sent a signal by radio to Luftflotte 2: "Attack postponed owing to parley."

At 13.50 the Dutch emissary duly crossed the bridge. He was Captain Bakker, the commandant's adjutant. On the Maas island he was met by Lieutenant-Colonel von Choltitz. A despatch-rider went off to the Corps HQ of Major-General Schmidt, just a few hundred yards to the south. Besides him, Lieutenant-General Student of the Air-Landing Corps and Lieutenant General Hubicki of 9th Panzer Division were also waiting there to hear the city commandant's answer to the urgent capitulation demand of the morning. Did the Dutch realise the seriousness of the situation?

Choltitz, waiting with Bakker on the. bridge for the few minutes till Corps was advised, seized the opportunity once
more to emphasize the deadly danger with which Rotterdam was threatened. But the Dutch officer looked about him
sceptically. There was not a shot to be heard. After days of fighting there seemed to be a cease-fire suddenly. As for the German tanks, allegedly all ready to swarm over the bridges into the centre of the city, there was not a sign of them.
Perhaps they did not exist? Perhaps the Germans had hurled their imprecations "to save Rotterdam" just to hide their own weakness.

In dismay Choltitz, and soon afterwards the German generals , were forced to recognise the fact that the Dutch
commandant, Colonel Scharroo, saw no immediate necessity to surrender. He still held the major part of the city, with his

142 THE LUFTWAFFE DIARIES

forces outnumbering the invaders even south of the Maas, while the remnants of the German 22 (Airborne) Division still holding out under Graf Sponeck in the northern outskirts' with a few hundred men were no longer capable of launching any attack. Why then should he capitulate? In any case the Dutch supreme commander, General Winkelmann, had ordered him to answer the German demand evasively.

Captain Bakker had accordingly brought a letter for General Schmidt in which the Rotterdam commandant professed to have found an error of form in the German communication of the morning. It went on: "Before such a proposal can be seriously considered, it must carry your rank, name and signature. (Signed) P. Scharroo, Colonel commanding Rotterdam troops."

As General Schmidt glanced through this letter it was just 14.15. The Dutch emissary had no power of negotiation concerning the surrender. He was solely authorised to receive the German conditions.

But it was only at 14.15, too, that the Airborne Corps' signals section at Waalhaven succeeded, on the frequently interrupted wavelength, in getting through to 2 Air Division with the vital message: "Attack postponed owing to parley." At that very minute KG 54 under Colonel Lackner was over the German-Dutch frontier on its way to Rotterdam. Three quarters of an hour earlier its hundred He 111s had taken off from Delmenhorst, Hoya/Weser and Quakenbruch in order to be punctually over the target at the appointed zero hour of 15.00.

The previous evening a liaison officer of the Geschwader had flown to meet General Student in Rotterdam, and taken back with him exact details of the operation, above all a map on which the enemy resistance zones had been marked.
were indicated by a triangle at the northern end of the bridges. Only within this triangle was KG54 permitted drop its bombs.

Now, on his approach, Colonel Lackner in the leading aircraft had this map spread on his knees. Copies had been given to his Gruppen and squadron commanders. attack was confined to a strictly military target. The power-

ASSAULT ON THE WEST 143

ful Dutch defence force to the north of the two bridges was to be immobilised by a short, sharp blow from the air, to enable the German troops to cross. Every bomber crew had further been instructed that on the north bank was also a small bridgehead of sixty Germans, whose lives must be safeguarded.

But there was one thing the crews did not know: that at this very moment surrender negotiations were coming to a head, and that pending their outcome the German army commander had cancelled the attack. Lackner only knew that such a possibility was on the cards.

"Just before take-off," he reported, "we received information from operations headquarters on the telephone that General Student had radioed that the Dutch had been called upon to surrender Rotterdam. On our approach we were to watch out for red Very lights on the Maas island. Should they appear we had orders to attack not Rotterdam, but the alternative target of two English divisions at Antwerp."

The question was: would they recognise the lights amongst all the haze and dust raised by five days of fighting?

Meanwhile General Schmidt was writing out in his own hand, point by point, the conditions of surrender that an
out-matched opponent could honourably accept. He concluded with the words: "I am compelled to negotiate swiftly,
and must therefore insist that your decision is in my hands within three hours, namely at 18.00 hours. Rotterdam South, 4.5.1940, 14.55 hours, (Signed) Schmidt."

Captain Bakker took the letter from him and returned at once to the city. Von Choltitz escorted him to the Willems bridge, and he hastened over it. Now it was exactly 15.00 hours--the time originally appointed for the air raid. "The
tension was appalling," wrote Choltitz. "Would Rotterdam surrender in time?" At that moment there came from the south the sound of any aero-engines. The bombers were on their way! Soldiers on the island loaded the Very pistols.
"Those of us on the spot," continued Choltitz, "could only hope that the necessary orders had been given, that the

144 THE LUFTWAFFE DIARIES

communications had not broken down, and that the high command knew what was happening."

But now the high command had no more control over the course of events. For half an hour, since it eventually got Schmidt's signal, Luftflotte 2 had been doing its best to contact KG 54 on the radio and recall it. The command directly responsible for it the "Air Corps for Special Purposes"—had also put out urgent recall messages. As soon as its chief of staff, Colonel Bassenge, received the vital signal in Bremen, he dashed into the signals office in person and rushed out the agreed code-word for the alternative target.

Unfortunately only the Geschwader's own operations room was keyed to the same frequency as the aircraft in the air, and before the orders had been received and handed on much time was lost. At Munster Luftflotte 2's operations officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Rieckhoff, leapt into a Messer-

ASSAULT ON THE WEST 145

Schmitt 109 and raced to Rotterdam. He hoped literally to divert the attack in person.

Even this brave endeavour came too late. The Geschwader was already lined up on its target. The radio operators had already withdrawn their trailing aerials, thereby drastically affection reception. All attention was now directed to the attack.

There remained just one slender chance: the red Very lights.

Shortly before it reached the target the Geschwader, according to plan, divided into two columns. The left one, under I Gruppe's commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Otto Höhne, turned to approach the triangle from the south-west, while Lackner himself went straight on.

"Though there were no clouds in the sky," he reported, "it was unusually misty. Visibility was so bad that I took my column down to 2,300 feet to be sure of hitting the required target and not the Lieutenant 'Kerlin] and his sixty men, or the bridges themselves."

At 15.05 he crossed the Maas and reached the city's edge. The altitude was ideal for medium flak, and it duly came up. With the target ahead, no evasive action was possible. All eyes were fastened on the course of the river. In the middle of Rotterdam the New Maas makes a loop to the north, and just west of its vertex are the twin bridges. Even in the prevailing mist and smoke their straight lines were still discernible, as were the outlines of the Maas island.

Yet despite their concentrated attention, neither pilots nor observers spotted any of the red light signals. All they saw were the little red balls of the Dutch flak which came dancing up in strings to meet them. Rotterdam's fate was just
few seconds away—seconds during which Choltitz's men on the island fired Very lights by the dozen.

"My God! there's going to be a catastrophe," cried Schmidt. With Student he stood at a point where Stieltjes Straat forms a circus, watching the bombers as they passed slowly overhead, palpably seeking their target. Both generals seized Very pistols and fired vertically into the air. And still the men above saw nothing. All ground signals were swal-

146 THE LUFTWAFFE DIARIES

lowed up in the haze and drifting, smoke from burning houses and the oily black clouds rising up from the passenger steamer Straatendam, set on fire by artillery.

Then it was too late. The starboard column of KG 54 droned over the target and the 100- and 500-lb. bombs went whistling down. They struck precisely in the triangular zone, in the heart of the Old City. After that it was the turn of the port column, with Lieutenant-Colonel Höhne and the staff section at its head.

"Never again," he reported after the war, "did I fly an operation accompanied by such dramatic circumstances. Both my observer, prone in front of me manning the bomb sight, and the radio-operator seated behind knew the signal I would give in the event of the bombing being cancelled at the last moment."

From the south-westerly direction of his approach the target was easy to recognise. On the inter-corn. the observer counted out his measurements. Höhne concentrated solely on the island, scanning it for the possible "barrage of red Very lights". But he, too, saw nothing. Finally his observer called out: "I must let go the bombs now or they'll fall away from the target."

Höhne gave the word, then immediately caught his breath. Faintly, and just for a second or two, he had glimpsed "not a barrage but just two paltry little Very lights ascending". Turning round, he shouted to the radio-operator the code-word to turn back.

For his own machine it was too late. The automatic release had already functioned, and the bombs went down. The same thing happened aboard the section's other two planes close behind. But for 1 Squadron the short space interval sufficed. Before the bombardiers could set their levers the radio-operators gave the stop signal. They hesitated, turned questioningly around, then gazed down again on the city.

Everywhere they saw the flash of explosions. Clouds of debris spread over the houses, and columns of smoke rose upwards. Had the command section ahead not dropped its bombs? Why suddenly should they not do so? No, the orders

ASSAULT ON THE WEST 147

were clear. The aircraft turned away. Höhne led his Gruppe to the south-west and its remaining bombs fell on the British.

So it was, that out of KG 54's hundred He 111s, only fifty-seven dropped their bomb-load over Rotterdam, the remaining 43 having been arrested from doing so at literally the last second. Subsequent enquiries elicited that, apart from Lieutenant-Colonel Höhne, not one man had spotted any of the Very lights that in fact had been sent up from the Maas island in an unbroken stream.

Altogether 158 500-lb. and 1,150 100-lb. bombs were dropped on the city—i.e., a total of ninety-seven tons. In accordance with the military nature of the mission, it was all high-explosive.


Yet the fact remains that the heart of Rotterdam was destroyed by fire. How could it have happened? High-explosive bombs—especially of the small size here used—were capable of destroying houses, tearing up streets, blowing off roofs and knocking down walls; and there is no question that the buildings hit were severely damaged. Such bombing can also start fires. With Rotterdam an international trading centre for oil and margarine products, they were likely to spread quickly. Fanned by the wind blowing towards the city, they ignited the old timbered houses. But could not the fire brigades have controlled them first?

The day after the raid a detachment of a German fire police regiment drove into Rotterdam with up-to-date fire engines. There was little left to save; the fire's fury had spent itself. The regiment's commander, Colonel Hans Rumpf, examined the causes of the catastrophe. His report brings to light one quite new detail:

"This world-wide trading city of almost a million inhabitants still retained, in the face of every modern development, the long out-moded principle of a citizen fire brigade. The backbone of this brigade consisted of a two-wheeled hand-operated contraption not unlike that invented by the painter Jan van der Heyden in 1672. Otherwise there were a small number of powered engines which, though without crews,

148 THE LUFTWAFFE DIARIES

could in case of need be driven to an incident, and a few pressure pumps mounted on tugboats. That was all."

Rumpf came to the conclusion that in an air raid such an out-dated firefighting organisation could not have helped at all. To which the Dutch would answer that it was perfectly adequate to cope with ordinary fires, and that they had never reckoned with the possibility of a heavy air raid on the centre of their city. Why should they? Was it not contrary to military law that a civil population should be attacked?

No law governing the air war of World War II, however, existed—an omission that was bitterly brought home to the statesmen concerned. The nearest approach to one was Article 25 of the Hague Convention of 1907 concerning surface warfare, which ran: "It is prohibited to attack or fire upon cities, villages, dwellings or buildings that have no means of defending themselves."

Inasmuch as Rotterdam was defended by every means, it was not covered by this Article. The German call to surrender—on pain of a heavy attack from the air—was, moreover, in accordance with Article 26, which prescribed that before fire is opened "the defenders shall be informed".

Finally, the suspicion has been voiced that Hitler or Goering deliberately ordered the raid in order to impress oh all their enemies the terror of the German war machine. Such a view is disproved by sober documentary evidence. This shows that the sole objective of the raid was the tactical one of capturing the key point needed for the country's occupation and of rescuing German soldiers, some of them hard-pressed, in the north and south of the city.

The real tragedy was that the raid took place while Rotterdam's surrender was being negotiated. The fact that, despite every endeavour, fewer than half the bombers were successfully recalled at the very last second, was on the German side a matter of deep and sincere regret.
It is clear to me that this bombing was not a war crime -- but was it "terrorism" to threaten to destroy the city of Rotterdam unless it surrendered?

The map is taken from Cajus Bekker, The Luftwaffe War Diaries, Ballantine Books, New York: 1966, p. 144.

The photograph is taken from Pictorial History of the Second World War, Wm. H. Wise & Co., New York: 1944, vol. I, p. 109. The large white area north of the Maas river, in the center of the photograph, shows the area which was destroyed in the bombing.
Attachments
Rotterdam Raid.jpg
Rotterdam Raid.jpg (77.42 KiB) Viewed 5658 times
Rotterdam 14 May 1940.jpg
Rotterdam 14 May 1940.jpg (142.35 KiB) Viewed 5662 times

Curioso
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 13:07
Location: Pagnà

#8

Post by Curioso » 07 Mar 2005, 11:52

tonyh wrote: "(a) Rotterdam, Dresden, Coventry, Hamburg etc. all contained objectives that, if hit, would give the attacker a strictly military advantage, but
(b) by hitting all of those cities, the attacker also obtained, or sought to obtain, a morale-effect advantage."


Unfortunately (b) is wrong in the case of Rotterdam, which is what I have been arguing as the intended effect of the Luftwaffe's sorties over Rotterdam that that was NOT to caused "Terror", but to support the land attack and German elements with in the City. The is enforced by Gallands statements above, the number of aircraft used and the fact that KG54 were carrying only high explosives and no incendiaries.
I don't see how you can claim b) is wrong. The bombing of Rotterdam had its weight on all the later decision of Dutch and French and generally Allied decision-makers, thus it did have a morale effect.

I can't agree that the targeting of any element produces morale sapping consequnences. There is a HUGE difference in attacking a U-boat pen or other military targets and simply pouring bombs into the centre of a hugely populated City, a la Dresden. The latter has a far bigger morale drain than the former.
You are contradicting yourself here, don't you see? "Zero" is different from "a small amount".
NO morale effect is quite a different quantity from a SMALLER morale effect. I can agree with you that the difference is huge. I can't agree with you that there are attacks that have NO morale effects.

User avatar
Werner Marty
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 12 Jan 2003, 05:48
Location: Australia

#9

Post by Werner Marty » 11 Mar 2005, 06:39

So true, my father was living in Holland during the war and the worst part of the war was the allied bombing raids. He still hates the British for the raids on The Hague towards the end of the war. "They only came at night and only destroyed our homes"

Curioso
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 13:07
Location: Pagnà

#10

Post by Curioso » 11 Mar 2005, 11:39

David Thompson wrote:
It is clear to me that this bombing was not a war crime -- but was it "terrorism" to threaten to destroy the city of Rotterdam unless it surrendered?
Yes, it was no war crime. Yes, it was terrorism, at least with the definition that was put forth in the previous thread on Dresden (an act that influences the enemy's morale). Either we come up with a better definition of terrorism, or the definition definitely applies to this - and to just about any act of war.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#11

Post by David Thompson » 18 Mar 2005, 19:00

Here is 3 other photographs, published in Signal magazine, of Rotterdam after the 1940 bombing. The caption for the third photo reads:
The spectacle of "total war." After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how hopeless it was the resist the German Luftwaffe -- and paid for the lesson by the destruction of the centre of the city(emphases in original).
The photographs were scanned from ed. S.L. Mayer, Hitler's Wartime Picture Magazine: Signal, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs [NJ]: 1976. I'd give a page number, but the book isn't paginated.
Attachments
Rotterdam Burns.jpg
Rotterdam Burns.jpg (47.67 KiB) Viewed 5502 times
Rotterdam Surrenders.jpg
Rotterdam Surrenders.jpg (53.57 KiB) Viewed 5501 times
Rotterdam bombing 1940.jpg
Rotterdam bombing 1940.jpg (174.23 KiB) Viewed 5516 times

jv
In memoriam
Posts: 416
Joined: 20 Nov 2004, 23:08
Location: Australia

Rotterdam

#12

Post by jv » 18 Mar 2005, 23:39

An additional note to this thread: whilst the surrender negotiations were in progress, the German dropped 50 bombs on Rotterdam (their version). This was only a third of what they had planned to drop on Rotterdam (their version again). Because the negotiations had not been concluded, the attack was postponed (their version again). The official wording was:
"Das voellige Abstoppen des Angriffes war aber technisch nicht mehr moeglich, so dass noch ungefaehr ein Drittel der angesetzen Verbaende startete". The number of fatalities was ca 700/800 (the German estimate 300). The number of bombs was ca. 1300. The photo shows the Leibstandarte crossing the Willemsbrug in Rotterdam. jv
Attachments
rotterdam.jpg
rotterdam.jpg (60.55 KiB) Viewed 5494 times

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8711
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

#13

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 19 Mar 2005, 04:38

Aha . About 50-55 medium bombers dropped around 1300 bombs ?

Jan-Hendrik

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#14

Post by David Thompson » 19 Mar 2005, 05:18

Jan-Hendrik -- You asked:
Aha . About 50-55 medium bombers dropped around 1300 bombs ?
Let me repeat the quote from Bekker, posted above, to settle the numbers:
So it was, that out of KG 54's hundred He 111s, only fifty-seven dropped their bomb-load over Rotterdam, the remaining 43 having been arrested from doing so at literally the last second. Subsequent enquiries elicited that, apart from Lieutenant-Colonel Höhne, not one man had spotted any of the Very lights that in fact had been sent up from the Maas island in an unbroken stream.

Altogether 158 500-lb. and 1,150 100-lb. bombs were dropped on the city—i.e., a total of ninety-seven tons. In accordance with the military nature of the mission, it was all high-explosive.
According to William Green, Famous Bombers of WWII, Hanover House, Garden City NY: 1959, vol. 2, pp. 10-11, the He-111P series went into production in late 1938:
The centre section bomb bay had a maximum capacity of of 4,410 lb., and the largest bomb carried was a 550-pounder, eight of these being stowed nose-up in individual cells, four on each side of a gangway.

That makes the carrying capacity of 57 Heinkel-111s = 125 tons of bombs, which comports with Bekker's figure of 97 tons dropped on Rotterdam.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

#15

Post by tonyh » 21 Mar 2005, 18:31

It is clear to me that this bombing was not a war crime -- but was it "terrorism" to threaten to destroy the city of Rotterdam unless it surrendered?

The map is taken from Cajus Bekker, The Luftwaffe War Diaries, Ballantine Books, New York: 1966, p. 144.

The photograph is taken from Pictorial History of the Second World War, Wm. H. Wise & Co., New York: 1944, vol. I, p. 109. The large white area north of the Maas river, in the center of the photograph, shows the area which was destroyed in the bombing.
I can't take it a "terror bombing" in the same sense as the RAF's night campaign David. Schmidt states "...could result in the complete destruction of the city."

He clearly means that the city would suffer damage if there is going to be a running battle within its confines...a la Stalingrad or Berlin. This is NOT a 'capitulate or we'll burn down your city and its people with our air force.'

Likewise, the Luftwaffe was strictly ordered "to use all means to prevent unnecessary bloodshed amongst the Dutch population".

This is hardly in keeping with a "terror" attack, in which the focus IS the civilian population.

Tony

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”