German urban population in WW2

Re: Post subject

No, Im just saying regardless, you shouldnt delibretely target civilians. Even if you cant do strategic bombing

 

Re: post subject

Merlin I wasn´t aware of the fact that you had to suffer and experience Luftwaffe´s airaids against cities and civilians, also don´t want to insult you (for this). Considering this and that what you´ve written, sry for ma rather unfriendly replies.

Regards,
Che.

 

Re: post subject

douple post -.-

 

Why do these things always happen on my day off?

Well, provided nobody does anything stupid, I think we've weathered the storm. But guess which topic I will be keeping a cose eye on now.

 

This one.

 

basically the usa and uk had heavy bombers and theyt were the only way to strike at the germans pre 1944.the bomber cabals are political forces trying to legitamize their great costs .between the weather ,winds ,cloud cover and flak it was soon discovered that bombers couldnt really hit anything much smaller than a city .

we allies condemed the lw for terror bombing in spain ,holland and poland but soon did the same thing to them because hitting facories ,railyards and wharfs is just too dang hard .the people who survived the depression in germany 1920s and 30s were a very hardy breed and as for speaking out against hitler or the war in 44 ,45 .that was a hanging offence ..like in right now right here .and of course most germans had sons ,husbands ,brothers ect in uniform and were very much behind the war effort

..if you were a german in wartime germany you would very likely act and think just as they did ..however, my dad tells me that many in the usa after the discovery of the death camps in 45 were all for stuffing ALL germans in those same ovens and being done with their bullshit once and for all .


of course us and brit occupation troops soon had german girlfreinds ,despite the militarys rules about fraternizeing and often adopted the girls whole extended family .people tend to change tgheir views when they sit down and break bread with one another .

 

It should be pointed out that the USAAF continued to use precision bombing throughout the war. I am aware that "precision" was a relative term in those days, but the fact that they continued to try for precision should still be remembered IMHO.

 

Which do you think was worse dropping the A-Bomb on Japan, or plastering their cities with napalm?

 

both are very horrible when veiwed from the present . the prism used by allied veiwers in 1945 was a different kind altogerther ,optics have changed some over 70 years but their prism was the correct prism for their times ,imo.

 

Well, they did and they didn't. Firstly, of course, they couldn't use precision bombing when there were inconvenient clouds hanging around.

Secondly, while the lead plane dropped its bombs vi the Norden, the remainder of the formation dropped their bombs when he did. Given the size of each box, you really would struggle to call that 'precision' bombing.


commando - the firebomb attacks killed more people and did more damage per raid than the nukes did. And burning to death is worse than being vapourised (I would imagine).

Indeed. One of the mostheartwarming things is how often you see former enemies realising that actually people tend to be much the same wherever you go (fanatics aside).

 

But you're only vapourised if you're close enough to the detonation, further out and you can still be burnt to death, further still and you suffer a lengthy and painful death from radiation poisoning or cancer.

 

True enough, but would dying of starvation over a period of months (as the USN and USAAF proposed) or in the fighting accompanying an American invasion of the home islands (as the US Army proposed) have been any better for the people of Japan? Terrible as the nuclear attacks were, they at least ended the war quickly and at a lower ultimate cost.

 

No argument from me there, I was just saying that it's not as straightforward as saying "At least with a nuke you die instantly and painlessly".

 

True. I suppose the point is that with a nuke some people will die quickly & painlessly, while almost nobody will in a firestorm.

What a horribly gruesome discussion. Bottom line - neither one is really preferable. :-?

 

Sure enough!

 

the bomber lobbys became powerful in ww2 because they controlled the only weapons which could take the war to the enemys doorstep

i ww1 heavy bombers were flimsey ,slow and few , as a result civillian deaths from explosive ordinance were very light . by 1940 heavy bombers were fast ,robust ,could carrie large loads and travel long distances .pre war , the plan was to use them to tale out factorys ,wherehouses ,docks ,transportation ,military bases ect .actual war soon showed that the heavys could not hit a bull in the ass with a 2x4 . as simon pointed out , they could hit something the size of london or hamburg .useing military force to kill civillians was considered immoral in the west until about 1942 .the realities of the accuracy high altitude bombing produced the death of millions of civillians in ww2

imo it was wrong before 1942 and it still is ,however the realitys and politics of the allied effort to win uncomditionaly, pretty much doomed many innocents in axis countries . people who have been bombed ( like merlin ) tend to be rather unsympathetic to thr plight of the enemy people who feilded the bombers which bombed him .i agree with che that immolating hausfraus and kinter was sad and terrible thing but if i were in churchills or fdrs shoes i would have done what they did .

war is hell and ww2 was the most hellish of wars .the axis powers sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind

 

Ok...

War = Death and Destruction

Nothing justify nothing. But, the bombarment was needed at the time, because the german military industry don't stop and the war against the Russians remains bloody and hard. So the Western allies must do something to destroy de Nazi war machine while prepare for the invasions. And if you think "coldly", the "Civilians" colaborate in the Nazi war effort with their hand of work. And The Bombers keep a great number of planes and AA crews busy and consuming vital supplies.

Now...I realy want to know how the civil germans cope with the war, I would like to know if they suffered rationed food, if they were engaged by foce to serve on wehrmacht, etc. And principally if they agreed with the war becoming so long and hard.

 

Considering this I wil derail this thread, but why did the Empire of Japan surrender ?

Nearly every battle fought by the Imperial Japanese Army at the late stages of the war shows that they rather committed suicide/suicidal atacks then surrender. In Saipan and Okinawa huge numbers of civilians died in suicidal attacks and "normal" suicide. So what I wanna say is, that caused by the jap. mentality it is impossible and dishonorable (a high esteemed value) to surrender. So why did they say we´re going to capitulate ?

 

Because the atom bomb allowed them to surrender without losing face -

Regular bombing, you can fight. An invasion of your islands, you can fight. But when 1 bomb can obliterate an entire city... you just can't fight that.

The difference is between going down fighting, giving your enemy big casualties, and just being splattered into nothingness by forces entirely beyond your control.

 

Yes Ricky, I have to agree.
It was ALL about "saving face."

I've also read of a plot by the "militarists" who insisted the Emperor should never surrender, and they attempted to subvert his address to the Japanese people in those final days. I think the Kempeitai were involved in this plot as well.

Tim