Churchill & Harris - Terror raids

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Tonyny44
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Jun 2003 20:23
Location: Florida

Post by Tonyny44 » 26 Aug 2003 22:01

So wait, it's all fine and dandy for the Luftwaffe to bomb London, but not for the Royal Air Force to bomb Berlin? Give me a break! In all seriousness, do you believe the RAF should have just sat back? Please...


I can play your little game much BETTER than you darling. Once again you put words in my mouth in VAIN. Of course you KNOW I NEVER said that. Bombing Berlin on PURPOSE after an ACCIDENTAL bombing of London is, to use your words, criminal. Too bad being a wiseass here is not subject to moderation.

I've already stated that the Berlin raid was retaliatory, but whereabouts in the Geneva Convention will you be able to find a specific law that was violated by the raid?


Once AGAIN I never SAID it violated any so-called convention. Some "conventions" are not defined by politicians. The more you talk the more your TRUE colors come out. Hip hip...

[
b]It was not a war crime[/b] - it was a justified measure of aerial warfare. You will not change my opinion on this, so don't bother trying.


I would rather get 4 teeth pulled in a row than try changing your opinion. But I do enjoy shining a light on your poppycock. (smile)

Ooh! We are are feeling a little anti-British today, aren't we? Well, you can call me a "Redcoat" any day of the week, just don't be surprised when I take it as a compliment!


Blimy redcoat. We kicked your butts 200 years ago and saved it some 60 yrs ago. Even though your empire wasn't the same post WWII. But I do like your shoes. :)

If you believe that the raid was a war crime, find a law in the Geneva Convention regarding the International Laws of Warfare, that the raid violated.


Now, according to the Geneva Convention, the aerial bombardment of cities is prohibited only if the target is declared an "Open City" - my interpretation of such as law is as follows:


Blah blah blah..........show me the MORAL justification for it in there. All's fair in love and war but do get off your high horse ol chap.

1. That the target will have absolutely no way in which to defend itself from the subesquant aerial bombardment.

2. The target in question bears no relation whatsoever to the enemy war effort - i.e. no industrial production sites are located inside
the target.


Take a gander at this one -- The TARGET in question BEING related to uncle churchy having a boner for AH? Look that one up....heh.

Now if you claim to be more of an expert of the laws of aerial warfare as stated by the Geneva Convention, then by all means, go ahead an prove my above statement wrong. Cite the specific law which the raid on Berlin in the Summer of 1940 violated. Otherwise, you have no means by which to label the raid a war crime.


Sure I do. Ready? War crime -- war crime -- war crime! nah nah nah Get your HEAD outta the BOOKS (and perhaps another part of your anatomy) and especially after your HIGH PRAISE of hop-along-harris and JUSTIFY to YOURSELF -- nevermind me -- how a retaliatory attack responding to an ACCIDENT is justified in your book. If you can justify that -- it doesn't make YOU any better than those you cry about.

Cheers

User avatar
Tonyny44
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Jun 2003 20:23
Location: Florida

Post by Tonyny44 » 26 Aug 2003 22:13

I haven't written squat about the Luftwaffe attack on London NOT being accidental.


Never said you did...

On the contrary, I confirmed that the bombs were dropped on residential parts of London because of the badly defined targets assigned to the attacking squadrons. Hence the attack was accidental. But it was more


My point ALL along.

than a single lost bomber as previously thought. My understanding is that


Blame Matt for that -- he has it as a single bomber along with the MODEL of bomber to boot. Got the crew names to Matt? Of course it took him 3 web pages on this to finally "remember" any of this. (ahem)

the targets to be hit by the Luftwaffe were industrial by nature, including an oil depot near the Thames Estuary, but as I wrote previously the accuracy was off and bombs fell over central London and the areas of the city mentioned above. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.


It does and thanks. Oil depots and the like would be considered MILITARY targets. ACCIDENTALLY bombing civilian areas doesn't justify PURPOSELY bombing them in return in Germany. This smells like that old sea dog Churchill through and through. Bad guys weren't limited to one side in the last war.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 26 Aug 2003 22:16

[quote="Tonyny44]
Of course in your book bombing London was barbaric

No more barbaric than the bombing of the other cities and towns in Britain which the Luftwaffe had done from day one of the BOB.


Bombing Berlin because of an ACCIDENTAL bombing of London as an act of revenge IS criminal. And before the rest of you "redcoats" jump in SEPARATE POLITICS from this discussion.

Were the British aware it was accidental?
Did at any time did the Germans say to the British that London was 'off-limits' to its bomber force and therefore would the British kindly return the favour and not bomb Berlin ?.

User avatar
Henric Edwards
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 17:16
Location: Sweden

Post by Henric Edwards » 26 Aug 2003 22:24

Tonyny44 wrote:It does and thanks. Oil depots and the like would be considered MILITARY targets. ACCIDENTALLY bombing civilian areas doesn't justify PURPOSELY bombing them in return in Germany. This smells like that old sea dog Churchill through and through. Bad guys weren't limited to one side in the last war.



Yes, but just as Redcoat says, how would the British know that the attack was in fact accidental? The targets were located in the London area and for a couple of hours bombs fell over parts of the city which didn't house any industrial centres to speak of. Accidental or not, it was a direct attack on the English capital regardless of what the Luftwaffe aimed at, and it is here that the fact that there were more than one Luftwaffe bomber involved comes into play. It certainly seemed as a deliberate attack on the night of 24/25 August 1940.


~Henric Edwards

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 18:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

Post by Matt H. » 26 Aug 2003 22:26

Bombing Berlin on PURPOSE after an ACCIDENTAL bombing of London is, to use your words, criminal.


That's your opinion, not mine.

Blah blah blah..........show me the MORAL justification for it in there. All's fair in love and war but do get off your high horse ol chap.


Tony, the way you describe it, one may believe that the raid was the largest in history! Do you actually have any information regarding the consequences of the raid? Do you know the specific number of targets destroyed or damaged by the RAF during the raid?

Berlin was the objective of a raid by 129 aircraft during the night of 23rd/24th September and 112 aircraft claimed to have found their target despite a ground mist making identification difficult. This contrasted sharply when 17 aircraft claimed to have bombed the German Air Ministry building in Berlin. Official records from the city show that only 6 bombs fell on the whole of Berlin that night!


*emphasis is mine*

129 aircraft, 112 arrivals over the target area and a mere 6 bombs on target, according the RAF Bomber Command Diary. The raid was hardly the "crime" that you deem it to be. Bomber Command was operating only twin-engined bombers (Whitleys, Wellingtons, Blenheims, Battles) in the Summer of 1940. Such bombers carried considerably light payloads when compared to the Lancaster and Halifax models...

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Aug 2003 22:47

Added to that the were specifically targeting key buildings and installations such as the air ministry and gas station. Not of civilian areas.



regards,

User avatar
Henric Edwards
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 17:16
Location: Sweden

Post by Henric Edwards » 26 Aug 2003 23:04

The accounts I have read about the RAF Bomber Command raid on the night of 25/26 August 1940 claim that of about 80 a/c that set out for Berlin, 50 found the city and bombed through a thick cloud layer. The results were two bombs falling within the city limits destroying a summer house near Rosenthal and injuring two people. Other bombs fell harmlessly outside the city limits.

Sources:
Robin Neillands - The Bomber War p.44
Michael Tamelander - Slaget om Västeuropa p. 339
Denis Richards - RAF Bomber Command in the Second World War p.63



~Henric Edwards

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15112
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 26 Aug 2003 23:54

The raid was undertaken by a motley assortment of bombers-Wellingtons,Whitleys (19 in number from 51 & 58Sqn's) and Hampdens.

Andy H

User avatar
Tonyny44
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Jun 2003 20:23
Location: Florida

Post by Tonyny44 » 27 Aug 2003 01:29

No more barbaric than the bombing of the other cities and towns in Britain which the Luftwaffe had done from day one of the BOB.


You're not related to Matt by any chance are you? Lets try a different "tactic" in this on-going GAME Ready? Lemme play the parts you characters are playing for a change -- either REVISIONISTS of history or believers of anything spoon fed you since the war, students of Lord HEE HAW, or worse...
Ok here goes -- now remember this stuff is documented BEFORE you answer: To WHAT do you attribute the change in policy of the Germans from moving AWAY from military targets to civilian ones DURING THE SUMMER OF 1940? The lack of success the Germans were having so far? (hint) No that doesn't MAKE ANY SENSE. (hint)
Ok Monty your turn.......this I gotta hear.

Were the British aware it was accidental?


I'll defer this one to you're buddy Matt -- since he has the model of the plane down pat its worth a shot. But since I'm playing COMMON SENSE TEACHER here -- how's this one? The PILOT of the attacking plane that chased the GERMAN bomber WITNESSED the dropping of its payload as a maneuver to gain speed and get AWAY from the English fighter plane?

Did at any time did the Germans say to the British that London was 'off-limits' to its bomber force and therefore would the British kindly return the favour and not bomb Berlin ?.


Heck I'm not even a historian but I took a "long shot" in "guessing" an answer to that one. And the laughs continue...

Do me a favor -- if there is an AFTER life PLEASE stay out of OUR military. PLEASE do join the enemy's though. That would make our job so much easier in the event of war. Now THINK hard on this. What ADVANTAGE would one incur by telling his opponent who, what and WHERE he's bombing and what's off limits? (my sides ache from you people -- and before this I couldn't stand British comedy)

User avatar
Tonyny44
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Jun 2003 20:23
Location: Florida

Post by Tonyny44 » 27 Aug 2003 01:43

That's your opinion, not mine.


Eh yes..very observant

Tony, the way you describe it, one may believe that the raid was the largest in history!


There ya go again Matt......putting words in my mouth. What's the count now of you speaking for me? I lost track. But it does shed LIGHT on your tactics. 8)

o you actually have any information regarding the consequences of the raid? Do you know the specific number of targets destroyed or damaged by the RAF during the raid?

Once again you miss the point -- its NOT the damage incurred on Berlin. Its the IDEA that the attack was done to begin with. And for that we get 60 years of hearing about the "London blitz". The difference betwen you and me is I'm ALSO concerned about the PRIMER.

129 aircraft, 112 arrivals over the target area and a mere 6 bombs on target, according the RAF Bomber Command Diary. The raid was hardly the "crime" that you deem it to be.


I see -- so you're telling me and EVERYONE else that you define a crime by how much damage is done? Thanks for clarifying......stupid me.

Bomber Command was operating only twin-engined bombers (Whitleys, Wellingtons, Blenheims, Battles) in the Summer of 1940. Such bombers carried considerably light payloads when compared to the Lancaster and Halifax models...


Yeah how unfortunate -- too bad they didn't have cruise missles than eh? Than they would have really shown them what happens when someone makes a MISTAKE over England! heh :D

User avatar
Tonyny44
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Jun 2003 20:23
Location: Florida

Post by Tonyny44 » 27 Aug 2003 01:50

Andy H wrote:The raid was undertaken by a motley assortment of bombers-Wellingtons,Whitleys (19 in number from 51 & 58Sqn's) and Hampdens.

Andy H


This reply applies to the few I "missed" above yours. Ones I msised on purpose -- for my own sanity. :lol:

"Motley assortment" "hit one gas station" "hit a lollypop factory" etc, etc. aud nausieum. The general theme in your defense now has changed to "well maybe we did attack Berlin but it was a motley bunch who only meant to "sting" a bit. Unlike the bad bad krauts. This the best you can do? Tell that to just ONE person who lost their life at the time because Churchill had a baby over that ACCIDENT over London.

User avatar
Tonyny44
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Jun 2003 20:23
Location: Florida

Post by Tonyny44 » 27 Aug 2003 02:56

This reply applies to the few I "missed" above yours. Ones I msised on purpose -- for my own sanity. :lol:

"Motley assortment" "hit one gas station" "hit a lollypop factory" etc, etc. aud nausieum. The general theme in your defense now has changed to "well maybe we did attack Berlin but it was a motley bunch who only meant to "sting" a bit. Unlike the bad bad krauts. This the best you can do? Tell that to just ONE person who lost their life at the time because Churchill had a baby over that ACCIDENT over London.[/quote]


PS I'm done withn this topic -- its been fun but I do have a life. :D

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 18:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

Post by Matt H. » 27 Aug 2003 09:49

You're not related to Matt by any chance are you? Lets try a different "tactic" in this on-going GAME Ready? Lemme play the parts you characters are playing for a change -- either REVISIONISTS of history or believers of anything spoon fed you since the war, students of Lord HEE HAW, or worse...


Revisionists? Students of "Lord Hee Haw"? Was that, by chance a weak attack upon British patriotism?

There ya go again Matt......putting words in my mouth. What's the count now of you speaking for me? I lost track. But it does shed LIGHT on your tactics.


Well, if truth be told, you are considerably exaggerating the impact of the raid upon Germany.

Once again you miss the point -- its NOT the damage incurred on Berlin. Its the IDEA that the attack was done to begin with. And for that we get 60 years of hearing about the "London blitz". The difference betwen you and me is I'm ALSO concerned about the PRIMER.


The impact, outcome and consequences of the raid are beside the point? So we should simply disregard them as important factors upon discussing the raid?

I see -- so you're telling me and EVERYONE else that you define a crime by how much damage is done? Thanks for clarifying......stupid me.


I define a crime in times of warfare by measuring the action in question against the relevant law in the Geneva Convention for International Warfare. The Berlin raid of 1940 does not even come close to violating the laws of aerial warfare.

Firstly, Berlin was by all means possible, a legitimate target for the RAF. It was the heart of Germany's war effort in industrial, psychological and political terms.

Secondly, Berlin in 1940 could in no way be designated an "Open City". I have defined the term previously, and listed the numerous defences surrounding the German capital - is an "Open City" surrounded by rings of Flak 88s? Can an "Open City" call upon night-fighter and Me-109 squadrons for it's defence?

Yeah how unfortunate -- too bad they didn't have cruise missles than eh? Than they would have really shown them what happens when someone makes a MISTAKE over England! heh


Yes Tony - too bad the RAF did not possess cruise missiles... :roll:

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 27 Aug 2003 12:19

Tonyny44 wrote:
Were the British aware it was accidental?


I'll defer this one to you're buddy Matt -- since he has the model of the plane down pat its worth a shot. But since I'm playing COMMON SENSE TEACHER here -- how's this one? The PILOT of the attacking plane that chased the GERMAN bomber WITNESSED the dropping of its payload as a maneuver to gain speed and get AWAY from the English fighter plane?

:lol: The Luftwaffe in its reports after the raid gave the reason for the 'accidental' bombing of London as navigational error. There was NO enemy fighter :roll:

User avatar
Jack Nisley
Member
Posts: 342
Joined: 19 Dec 2002 02:37
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Post by Jack Nisley » 27 Aug 2003 20:39

A question with regard to this discussion:
Were any Luftwaffe Generals convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg or other war crimes trials for "terror bombing" of cities?

Jack Nisley

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”