Stalingrad 23 Aug 1942: Tactics or Spoliation?

[WalterS]

[This thread was split from the "Was Dresden bombing 'terrorism'?" thread and retitled by the moderator -- DT]

In Germany it's mainly the british bombardements which are considered "unjustified".
The american bombing aimed at trainstations, production facilities etc..., where the british also aimed for the city core, which might have happend just to kill civilians and spread terror, this is considered unjust.

In Germany, are the Luftwaffe bombing raids on Stalingrad in August 1942, which killed upwards of 40,000 Russian civilians, also considered "unjustified?"

[tonyh]

A post from tonyh, which contained personal remarks and insults, was deleted by the moderator pursuant to previous warnings posted in this thread at: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 141#645141

David, the point that the 40.000 figure civiilian death toll, from Luftwaffe bombing in Stalingrad, that WalterS insists on dropping around the forum is an unrealistic claim is valid, as pointed out by Joel Hayward in his book "stopped at Stalingrad".

Could you not simply have deleted the "offending" section of the post instead of the whole post?

Tony

[WalterS]

Mr Hayward does not say that the 40,000 figure is "invalid."

Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000 (20), although this seems extravagant when compared with the death tolls in German cities hit by similar bomb tonnages. The postwar official Soviet history merely states :'In one day, scores of thousands of families lost a member, and thousands of children their mothers and fathers.'(21)

("scores," of course means multiples of 20)

Joel S. Hayward: "Stopped st Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East, 1942-43" p.188.

Note 20 refers to a 1991 Time-Life series about the Third Reich, The Road to Stalingrad p.76

Note 21 refers to the Official Soviet History vol 2, p.436

Mr Hayward disagrees with the 40,000 figure because it "seems extravagant." He doesn't say it has no validity.

Antony Beevor, in his 1998 book, "Stalingrad, the Fateful Siege: 1942-43," writes:

According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of bombardment.

p. 106

So, the 40,000 figure is accepted by some and not by others. In contrast to Dresden, however, I have read no claims by Mr Hayward or anyone else that the 40,000 figure at Stalingrad was deliberately inflated. I also have not seen a definitive alternative figure proposed. Not even Mr Hayward does that. In his view, again, the 40,000 figure "seems extravagant." I don't have a problem accepting that as his conclusion.

As an aside, Mr Hayward's book is quite excellent and I highly recommend it.

[tonyh]

Mr Hayward does not say that the 40,000 figure is "invalid."

Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000 (20), although this seems extravagant when compared with the death tolls in German cities hit by similar bomb tonnages. The postwar official Soviet history merely states :'In one day, scores of thousands of families lost a member, and thousands of children their mothers and fathers.'(21)

("scores," of course means multiples of 20)

Joel S. Hayward: "Stopped st Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East, 1942-43" p.188.

Note 20 refers to a 1991 Time-Life series about the Third Reich, The Road to Stalingrad p.76

Note 21 refers to the Official Soviet History vol 2, p.436

Mr Hayward disagrees with the 40,000 figure because it "seems excessive." He doesn't say it has no validity.

Antony Beevor, in his 1998 book, "Stalingrad, the Fateful Siege: 1942-43," writes:

According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of bombardment.

p. 106

So, the 40,000 figure is accepted by some and not by others. In contrast to Dresden, however, I have read no claims by Mr Hayward or anyone else that the 40,000 figure at Stalingrad was deliberately inflated. I also have not seen a definitive alternative figure proposed. Not even Mr Hayward does that. In his view, again, the 40,000 figure "seems excessive." I don't have a problem accepting that as his conclusion.

As an aside, Mr Hayward's book is quite excellent and I highly recommend it.

"Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000 (20), although this seems extravagant ..."
Its pretty clear from this that Hayward thinks its a bogus figure and I agree with him.

Hayward's note "(20)" for the 40.000 nonsense says it comes from the "Time-Life" series of books. Hardly a source worth much salt. The same series of books put forth the Stalingrad Vasilly Saitzev/Heinz Thorvald sinper myth that has been thuroughly debunked too.

I have told you before in our argument about this http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 01&start=0 that the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad. Perhaps 40.000+ civilians were killed in the BATTLE of Stalingrad, but they were not killed by Luftwaffe bombing alone.

I think Hayward elaborates further on the Luftwaffe's actual tactical objectives in his book also.

Your insistant effort at comparing Dresden to Stalingrad was wrong two Months ago and its still wrong.

Tony

[WalterS]

In his post http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 848#653848 Mr Tonyh says:

"Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000 (20), although this seems extravagant ..."
Its pretty clear from this that Hayward thinks its a bogus figure and I agree with him.

and tonyh says

I have told you before in our argument about this http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 01&start=0 that the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

When writing my earlier post I was leaving for work and didn't have the chance to peruse what Mr Hayward's entire thoughts on the subject were. I stated that he didn't posit an alternative figure, but actually, he does.

In describing the Luftwaffe raid of 23 August Mr Hayward writes:

Estimating fatalities is difficult because of a paucity of reliable statistical data. Yet this hellish attack caused at least as many deaths as similar-sized Allied raids on German cities. For example, it certainly claimed as many victims as the Allied attack on Darmstadt during the night of 11 and 12 September 1944, when the Royal Air Force unloaded almost 900 tons of bombs and killed over 12,300 citizens. The Stalingrad death toll may, in fact, have been twice that of Darmstadt, due to the fact that that the Russian city was poorly provided with air raid shelters. Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000, although this seems extravagant when compared with the death tolls in German cities hit by similar bomb tonnages.

Joel S. Hayward "Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East, 1942-43," p. 188

Remember, he's talking about one day of bombing. The Luftwaffe pounded Stalingrad for several more days after that. Mr Hayward estimates that the civilian death toll could have been as high as approximately 24,600 (12,300x2). That gives us a range of estimates, from 12,300 to 24,600 for one day. The 40,000 figure quoted by Beevor and others includes the entire first week of bombing. I don't think either figure is unrealistic. Even Mr Hayward concedes that the Luftwaffe was very capable of killing a lot of civilians and destroying a city.

and tonyh says

... even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad......I think Hayward elaborates further on the Luftwaffe's actual tactical objectives in his book also.

Mr Hayward and others do elaborate on the Luftwaffe targeting during the Stalingrad raids.

Late in the afternoon [23 AUG], Fiebig's Corps [Luftwaffe VIII Air Corps] carried out what the fleet chief [Richthofen] called his "second great attack of the day": an immense raid on Stalingrad itself. Bombers smashed buildings to rubble with high explosives and torched various residential areas with incendiaries, leaving houses, schools, and factories wildly burning. In some suburbs the only structures left standing were the blackened brick chimneys of incinerated wooden houses. "Never before in the entire war had the enemy attacked in such strength from the air," wrote Lieutenant General Vasili Chuikov....

ibid, p. 188

Richthofen flew over Stalingrad on the morning of 25 August to watch that day's "great fire attack." The city, he later noted in his diary, was "destroyed, and without any further worthwhile targets."

ibid, p. 189

Richthofen's aircraft began to carpet-bomb in relays, 'not just industrial targets but everything,' said one student present that day [23 AUG]. The high explosive bombs oscillated gently as they dropped in sticks from the Heinkels. Descriptions of scenes in the city make it hard to imagine anyone surviving outside a cellar. Incendiary bombs showered on the wooden houses down the southwestern edge of the city. They burned to the ground....

Antony Beevor "Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-43," p. 105

Fourth Air Fleet aircraft flew a total of 1,600 sorties that day and dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for the loss of only three machines. According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of the bombardment.

ibid p.106

and this:

Like strings of gulls, flying in perfect V's, the Stukas and Ju-88's droned over the sun drenched city and tipped over into their dives. Their bombs fell into the crowded downtown residential area and, because of the long drought, flames spread like wildfire. In seconds, Stalingrad was ablaze.

William Craig, "Enemy at the Gates" p.58

In his diary that evening, the aggressive, flamboyant Luftwaffe general, Freiherr von Richthofen, summed up the results of his pilots' operations over the stricken city, "A sudden alert sent out by VIII Air Corps put the whole of Air Fleet Four into the air, with the result that we simply paralyzed the Russians......"

It was true. The city's pulse slowed, numbed by the blows that had killed nearly forty thousand people.

ibid, p. 61

At dawn [24 AUG] the city of Stalingrad looked as though a giant hurricane had lifted it into the air and smashed it down again in a million pieces.

ibid, p. 65

And, finally,

Once again the Germans tried to stampede the civilian population. The Stukas came back to bomb the jammed embankment beside the main ferry landing. With no place to hide, the masses there weaved back and forth like a pendulum, first close to the cliff wall for shelter and then out again when the Stukas dove past. Clusters of bombs found them and the shoreline was slippery with blood.

ibid, p.69-70

I think that Tonyh's statement that:

the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

can be dismissed as being completely without any factual basis.

At Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe targeted a city, bombed its residential areas, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians in support of tactical military objectives, namely 6th Army's advance from the Don river to the Volga.

At Dresden, the Allies targeted a city, bombed its residential areas, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians in support of strategic military objectives, namely the destruction of Dresden's communications, transport and war industry capabilities.


I think the comparison is appropriate.

[Fugazi]

WalterS:
I think the comparison [Stalingrad cf Dresden] is appropriate.

Not really. Stalingrad was bombarded as part of an attack on it by ground forces. A more appropriate comparison would be with Berlin in April 1945, when it was shelled by the Soviets as part of their attack. Defending a city against attack by ground forces necessarily results in civilian casualties, and the deaths of civilians killed in the bombardment of Berlin were the responsibility of their government, not the Soviet attackers.

Once again: deliberately targeting the civilian population in an attempt to horrify the enemy into surrender and spare the lives of your own military personnel is different from simply attacking regardless of potential civilian casualties. Neither are very nice, but one of them ought to be (and since 1949 is) considered a war crime.

Re the 40,000 figure, this seems to come entirely from speculation. A similar process resulted in figures in the 200,000s for Dresden. Discovery of the actual documents brought the figures back down with a bump. Seems like this hasn't happened with Stalingrad yet.

The eyewitness reports of Luftwaffe brutality would have to be treated with the same circumspection as the reports of strafing during and after the Dresden raids, which are generally accepted by historians never to have happened despite their featuring in multiple independent accounts.

[WalterS]

Fugazi wrote:

The eyewitness reports of Luftwaffe brutality would have to be treated with the same circumspection as the reports of strafing during and after the Dresden raids, which are generally accepted by historians never to have happened despite their featuring in multiple independent accounts.

I completely agree, which is why I included the quote from General von Richthofen about Stalingrad being "destroyed.... nothing left to bomb." I think the general's words lend credence to the notion that the Luftwaffe could, and did, devastate targets other than those which were purely military in nature.

[tonyh]

In his post http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 848#653848 Mr Tonyh says:

"Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000 (20), although this seems extravagant ..."
Its pretty clear from this that Hayward thinks its a bogus figure and I agree with him.

and tonyh says

I have told you before in our argument about this http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 01&start=0 that the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

When writing my earlier post I was leaving for work and didn't have the chance to peruse what Mr Hayward's entire thoughts on the subject were. I stated that he didn't posit an alternative figure, but actually, he does.

In describing the Luftwaffe raid of 23 August Mr Hayward writes:

Estimating fatalities is difficult because of a paucity of reliable statistical data. Yet this hellish attack caused at least as many deaths as similar-sized Allied raids on German cities. For example, it certainly claimed as many victims as the Allied attack on Darmstadt during the night of 11 and 12 September 1944, when the Royal Air Force unloaded almost 900 tons of bombs and killed over 12,300 citizens. The Stalingrad death toll may, in fact, have been twice that of Darmstadt, due to the fact that that the Russian city was poorly provided with air raid shelters. Recent popular accounts have advanced a figure of around 40,000, although this seems extravagant when compared with the death tolls in German cities hit by similar bomb tonnages.

Joel S. Hayward "Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East, 1942-43," p. 188

Remember, he's talking about one day of bombing. The Luftwaffe pounded Stalingrad for several more days after that. Mr Hayward estimates that the civilian death toll could have been as high as approximately 24,600 (12,300x2). That gives us a range of estimates, from 12,300 to 24,600 for one day. The 40,000 figure quoted by Beevor and others includes the entire first week of bombing. I don't think either figure is unrealistic. Even Mr Hayward concedes that the Luftwaffe was very capable of killing a lot of civilians and destroying a city.

and tonyh says

... even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad......I think Hayward elaborates further on the Luftwaffe's actual tactical objectives in his book also.

Mr Hayward and others do elaborate on the Luftwaffe targeting during the Stalingrad raids.

Late in the afternoon [23 AUG], Fiebig's Corps [Luftwaffe VIII Air Corps] carried out what the fleet chief [Richthofen] called his "second great attack of the day": an immense raid on Stalingrad itself. Bombers smashed buildings to rubble with high explosives and torched various residential areas with incendiaries, leaving houses, schools, and factories wildly burning. In some suburbs the only structures left standing were the blackened brick chimneys of incinerated wooden houses. "Never before in the entire war had the enemy attacked in such strength from the air," wrote Lieutenant General Vasili Chuikov....

ibid, p. 188

Richthofen flew over Stalingrad on the morning of 25 August to watch that day's "great fire attack." The city, he later noted in his diary, was "destroyed, and without any further worthwhile targets."

ibid, p. 189

Richthofen's aircraft began to carpet-bomb in relays, 'not just industrial targets but everything,' said one student present that day [23 AUG]. The high explosive bombs oscillated gently as they dropped in sticks from the Heinkels. Descriptions of scenes in the city make it hard to imagine anyone surviving outside a cellar. Incendiary bombs showered on the wooden houses down the southwestern edge of the city. They burned to the ground....

Antony Beevor "Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-43," p. 105

Fourth Air Fleet aircraft flew a total of 1,600 sorties that day and dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for the loss of only three machines. According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of the bombardment.

ibid p.106

and this:

Like strings of gulls, flying in perfect V's, the Stukas and Ju-88's droned over the sun drenched city and tipped over into their dives. Their bombs fell into the crowded downtown residential area and, because of the long drought, flames spread like wildfire. In seconds, Stalingrad was ablaze.

William Craig, "Enemy at the Gates" p.58

In his diary that evening, the aggressive, flamboyant Luftwaffe general, Freiherr von Richthofen, summed up the results of his pilots' operations over the stricken city, "A sudden alert sent out by VIII Air Corps put the whole of Air Fleet Four into the air, with the result that we simply paralyzed the Russians......"

It was true. The city's pulse slowed, numbed by the blows that had killed nearly forty thousand people.

ibid, p. 61

At dawn [24 AUG] the city of Stalingrad looked as though a giant hurricane had lifted it into the air and smashed it down again in a million pieces.

ibid, p. 65

And, finally,

Once again the Germans tried to stampede the civilian population. The Stukas came back to bomb the jammed embankment beside the main ferry landing. With no place to hide, the masses there weaved back and forth like a pendulum, first close to the cliff wall for shelter and then out again when the Stukas dove past. Clusters of bombs found them and the shoreline was slippery with blood.

ibid, p.69-70

I think that Tonyh's statement that:

the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

can be dismissed as being completely without any factual basis.

At Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe targeted a city, bombed its residential areas, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians in support of tactical military objectives, namely 6th Army's advance from the Don river to the Volga.

At Dresden, the Allies targeted a city, bombed its residential areas, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians in support of strategic military objectives, namely the destruction of Dresden's communications, transport and war industry capabilities.


I think the comparison is appropriate.

YET AGAIN you have persisted in a futile effort at a futile comparison. Really Walt, its truely ridiculous. Its VERY clear from Haywards definitive account on the Luftwaffes ops over Stalingrad, that he places no faith in the nonsensical 40.000 casualty figure that you repeatedly quote and anyone with even a flimsy knowledge of the payloads of the Luftwaffe's medium bombers will understand that that figure is a fantasy.

There may well have been 40.000 and above civilian deaths in Stalingrad, as I have stated...BUT THEY DID NOT OCCUR FROM LUFTWAFFE BOMBING ALONE.

Your Beevor quote of 40.000 remains unsubstantiated. Perhaps he has a footnote stating where he got that particular figure from or maybe he just simply poached it from the same "time-life" rubbish that Hayward dismisses. Either way, Beevor's book, while an entertaining read in simpy not in the same league as Haywards more focused, detailed and less "popularity aimed" account. I have not read "enemy at the gates" so I cannot comment on that particular book.

You insist on omitting the effect of the land battle that ran throughout, negating the importance of mortar fire, assualt vehicle fire and artillery which rained down on the City from within and without from both sides too. It would these parameters that would have caused the bulk of destruction withing the City itself as the battle raged.

Stalingrad was a BATTLEFIELD, not a strategic objectitve in the sense that Dresden was, but more like a target objective like Caen or Aachen, both of which were the subject of intense Allied bombardment from both the air and the ground in support of their own land advance.

Dresden and Stalingrad CANNOT be compared no matter how many times you try and engage in your frankly silly and ignorant attempt to do so.

Caen and Aachen are far better comparisons to Stalingrad.

You quotes from Hayward also are not the tactical objectives of Luftwaffe operations, they are paragraphs containing opinion and views from some persons who were there at the time. You'll need to read further to see what targets the Luftwaffe were charged with attacking.

Richthoffen's quote "destroyed, and without any further worthwhile targets." means for that particular attack. There still remained plenty of "worthwhile" tactical targets with Stalingrad and the surrounding subburbs.

You would be well advised to read "Stopped st Stalingrad" as a whole, instead of cherry picking quotes that suit your misguided opinion.

My statement of
the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

still stands.

This, from you is still bunkum...
At Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe targeted a city, bombed its residential areas, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians in support of tactical military objectives, namely 6th Army's advance from the Don river to the Volga.

At Dresden, the Allies targeted a city, bombed its residential areas, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians in support of strategic military objectives, namely the destruction of Dresden's communications, transport and war industry capabilities.

There were specific tactical objectives attacked and damaged/destroyed such as the Red october factory installations, the Red Army garrisions and the Beketovka power plant by the Luftwaffe in its operations over Stalingrad.

The RAF simply dropped thousands of tons of bombs in the centre of Dresden, they didn't specifically target anything but the city and its people.

There was NO comparison between Dresden and Stalingrad two Months ago, two days ago and there is STILL NO comparison today.

Tony

[Andy H]

TonyH wrote:

My statement of
the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

still stands.

Hi Tony

From memory didn't London suffer some 1,500 deaths in a single day during the latter stages of the Blitz in May'41?

If this figure is correct then a extrapolation over a month would exceed the 40,000!
Also I would presume that British Air Raid precautions were more detailed than in Stalingrad. Thus minimising losses in London

Regards

Andy H

[David Thompson]

Let's try this discussion again, this time without the personal remarks.

The Bombing of Stalingrad by Nazi Aircraft on August 23, 1942
http://www.vor.ru/55/Stalingrad/History_5_eng.html

Too Little, Too Late: An Analysis of Hitler's Failure in August 1942 to Damage Soviet Oil Production
http://www.freewebs.com/joelhayward2/lu ... etoilf.htm

Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East 1942-1943 (Review)
http://stonebooks.com/archives/980721.shtml

I would like to focus the discussion on the war crime of spoliation -- an order to level or completely destroy a city -- reportedly given by Hitler in regard to Stalingrad.

[Curioso]

[quote="tonyh]

Stalingrad was a BATTLEFIELD, not a strategic objectitve in the sense that Dresden was

[/quote]

Stalingrad was not a strategic objective? Really? That probably would have come as news to German and Soviet generals at the time.
Stalingrad was a battlefield, of course. Dresden was a battlefield, too. Or you deem that a battlefield is only where land forces clash? What about the Atlantic, wasn't it a battlefield? The air over the Channel in the summer of 1940?

Of course Stalingrad and Dresden cannot be compared under certain respects. But they are exactly the same in the following respects:

- they were defended cities, therefore legitimate targets,
- they contained military assets and industrial complexes,
- they also contained civilians, but for the two reasons above the civilians couldn't be spared the bombings,
- lots of civilians died in the bombings,
- the bombings were carried out with maximum-effort policies by both sides.

So I think some things, concerning Stalingrad and Dresden, can certainly be compared. If you keep your focus on things like numbers of casualties and bomber payloads, certainly you'll find plenty of differences. The problem is that those are trivial differences.

[WalterS]

Thanks to Mr Thompson for posting those informative links. When one examines the information therein, and reads the previous posts by me and Curioso, tonyh's statement:

the Luftwaffe simply did not possess the capabilities to wipe out 40.000 people in a day, or a week or even a month of bombing, even if they were specifically targeting the civilian population, which they weren't in Stalingrad.

is obviously incorrect on every level.

tonyh obviously labors under the misconception that because the Luftwaffe did not employ large four engine bombers, it was incapable of devastating urban areas and killing masses of civilians. According to Prof Hayward's book, which tonyh originally brought into the discussion, the Luftwaffe raids on Stalingrad of 23 Aug 42 can be compared to the RAF raid on Darmstadt on 11/12 Sep 44. The RAF dropped over 900 tons of bombs killing approximately 12,300 civilians. Prof Hayward postulates that the Luftwaffe may have killed twice as many civilians at Stalingrad because that city was poorly equipped with air raid shelters and the residential areas were mostly of wooden construction.

The Luftwaffe flew some 1660 sorties against Stalingrad on 23 AUG, dropping about 1000 tons of bombs. A ton is a ton. It doesn't matter if that ton is one of 5 tons dropped by a Lancaster, or dropped singly by a Stuka or Heinkel. I think most readers will agree that Stukas and Heinkels, attacking on a clear day from less than 5,000 feet, with absolute air supremacy were able to deliver their tonnage with considerable accuracy. Thus, the devastation inflicted on Stalingrad in the raids of 23-25 Aug prior to 6th Army's arrival at the outskirts on 26 Aug can be said to have been deliberate. Even General von Richthofen, the main character of Professor Hayward's book, doesn't seem to distinguish much between "military targets" and the city. "The city is destroyed."

[PAK]

[This thread was split from the "Was Dresden bombing 'terrorism'?" thread and retitled by the moderator -- DT]

In Germany it's mainly the british bombardements which are considered "unjustified".
The american bombing aimed at trainstations, production facilities etc..., where the british also aimed for the city core, which might have happend just to kill civilians and spread terror, this is considered unjust.

In Germany, are the Luftwaffe bombing raids on Stalingrad in August 1942, which killed upwards of 40,000 Russian civilians, also considered "unjustified?"

Hello everyone,

I was very busy learning for my exams, so I wasn't around for some time, sorry for the delay

I find your question a bit disturbing since the answer is of course YES, I don't know what you might think of germans how they view this war, but most germans consider every action of this war conducted by Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS "unjust", an exception might be the last year of the war, where defense was all they could do to buy the refugees some time.

[WalterS]

Welcome back. Hope your exams went well!

[tonyh]

Stalingrad was not a strategic objective? Really? That probably would have come as news to German and Soviet generals at the time.

You know what I mean. Dresden was a "strategic" target in the RAF and USAF stragegic bombing campaign sense of the word. But not in the sense that Stalingrad was for the Luftwaffe, supporting the immeadiate advance of the wehrmacht.

Stalingrad was a battlefield, of course. Dresden was a battlefield, too. Or you deem that a battlefield is only where land forces clash? What about the Atlantic, wasn't it a battlefield? The air over the Channel in the summer of 1940?

Not in the same sense as we are discussing. Stalingrad was the imeadiate frontline. Dresden, Hamburg, Pforzheim etc were not.

But this is getting away from the main point that in Dresden the RAF simply bombed the center of the City and in Stalingrad, the Luftwaffe HAD to make an effort at targeting tactical objectives to support the advancing army.


Tony