And how were the Brits to distinguish accidental from intentional bombings, given the immediate past history of German aerial assaults? Sow the wind, reap a whirlwind.

Be cool with the language, BigMick. We like this forum to be open to schools. Hide your words so that filters don't pick it up. Use tw@t or ba$tard or my favorite - bass turd.

Great books. Well worth reading.

He realized the value in strengthen friendships that should have been strong to begin with.
I know little of Alanbrooke's contribution, other than what you have mention elsewhere and then my subsequent searches. Books on the subject are lacking over here.

Well, shoot, you convinced me.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Churchills attitude to Germany can be illustrated with this one quote;

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half".

Winston Churchill didn't hate German's as such, he was merely fully aware of the threat that the Kaisers Germany and the Nazi's posed to Britain.

ps, another Churchill quote;

"I hate nobody except Hitler - and that is professional."

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Why don't you.
You seem to have bought into the myths and not bothered to find out the truth.

Over the top with myths of Gallipoli - Gerard Henderson - www.theage.com.au

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

It was the Luftwaffe who instituted area bombing, it was the attack on Coventry which showed Bomber Command its effectiveness.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

I checked out Churchill and his contemporaries a few months ago to understand the political dynamics of the UK at the onset of WW II. The consensus reached was indeed what Martin said: Churchill was the right man in the right place at the right time.
I remember asking Ron Goldstein about Churchill in another thread here and he told me:
"Cometh the hour and cometh the man.
The man was Churchill."

__________________
That's about it,
Fil

When the war started the RAF were not allowed to bomb targets in Germany because it posed the risk of civilian casualties. They were only allowed to attack German warships at sea.

Germany meanwhile bombed whatever they wanted in Poland, including massed attacks on cities.

Then Germany turned its attention to Norway, again bombing cities when it suited them. Then they invaded France, Belgium and the Netherlands. On the first day they bombed a German town, Freiburg, by mistake, killing 60 civilians. They thought they were bombing Dijon in France.

When Rotterdam was in the way they bombed it, killing 900 civilians. It was only following the attack on Rotterdam that the RAF was allowed to attack military targets in Germany.

When Britain's turn began the Germans did not "accidentally" bomb cities, they did so deliberately. Goering called them "dislocation raids", designed to ensure the civilian population received no rest. On 19 August he ordered a "great attack" on Liverpool, to be delivered at night by more than 100 bombers.

In July 258 British civilians were killed by German bombing. In August over 1,000, and over 6,000 in September. Britain killed less than 400 German civilians by bombing in the whole of 1940.

It's often claimed the bombing of London was a single mistaken incident, but that's wrong as well. The first serious attack on London happened in mid August in broad daylight, an attack on an airfield in Croydon also hit a perfume factory, killing more than 50 civilians. From the 18/19 August the Luftwaffe dropped small numbers of bombs on London on almost every night.

The evil British using poor Commonwealth troops as cannon fodder meme is, as usual, wide of the mark.

Deaths at Gallipoli by country:

Newfoundland - 49
India - 1,358
New Zealand - 2,721
Australia - 8,709
France - 10,000
Britain - 21,255
Turkey - 86,692

I suspect too many people get their ideas on Gallipoli from the (incredibly biased) film rather than history books.

Well said, but one has to recall at all times that "historical-ethnocentric" mindsets of today are largely driven by "movies", "docu-dramas", and other visual input rather than printed history.

Sadly too many "grandfathers" remember what is convenient for the "tale", and even fathers can be guilty of this if our father is of WW2 age and experience. Then add in the completely understood "the story expands with time" factor and the entire system of "personal recall" starts to come under suspicion as to its veracity if compared to documentation.

Sometimes the "harsh light" of history is too condemning, and destroys too many closely held justifications for the loss of a loved one, and sometime the "legend" becomes the "history" (paraphrasing a quote from the movie, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance); "When the legend becomes the history, print the legend.")

Not to demean any vet. of any war, in any time-frame. But at times the personal stories must be tempered a tad remembering that like it or not, not all humans are "heroes", and not all humans are "cowards". They fall, to a great part between the two extremes.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Let us not forget the city of Guernica which during the Spanish Civil War was destroyed in a manner to be seen later in WW2.The Luftwaffe were contracted out to Gen. Franco and in the process had some on the job training. It worked at Guernica , so many towns in Europe suffered a similar fete.Other leaders failed to see the future, thankfully Churchill did not.

brndirt , I agree with you that movies and docudramas are not to be relied on but far to many do.They have been mentioned in this thread a souces of opinion. Movies are entertainmemnt, docudramas a comic book approach to history, Wham ,Bam and Splatt. If people want to know history then read books and lots of them from a variety sources. It is time consuming and not everyone is of a mind to do it but that is the way to gain all the facts.

Hello Hop,

the only part on Gallipoli that i would interpret as differnet is the tranaslation/interpretation of Casulties.

Now 2700 Nz's plus 8700 Au's would represent a % ratio to England in figures of nearly 80-100,000 English cassulties but they "only" had 21,000.

So I can follow the ANZAC's on that part.

As for the bombing issue:

Who the hell cares?? Hitler started of the war and any oposing country would have been stupid not to react with whatever means on whatever target.
Maybe someone can help me to check - but for the sake of "who bombed first"(England /Germany) IMO, AFAIK it was indeed the RAF with a raid on Duesseldorf in Mai/June 1940?

It was not the question of who bombed first on this planet - but IIRC the question refered only to England and Germany)

(Okay I just rechecked the attack was on the 15.05. 1940 - was there a bombing in WWII of targets in England before this date?)

But as I said, who cares?? or what does it matter??

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

I'll not argue the point. I was referring to "instituted" as making that bombing technique part of the British program of warfare, not necessarily the first instance of it.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Fair enough for one battle, but Gallipoli is virtually unknown in the UK because it was a minor battle from our point of view. If you take overall casualties then British deaths dwarf those of Commonwealth soldiers, not just in numbers but in percentage of population as well.

As I said earlier, the RAF was allowed to bomb only German warships at sea, the government was keen to avoid even the risk of German civilian casualties.

The first break in that policy was a German attack on the Orkney islands on 16 March 1940. Whilst they were aiming for military targets they hit civilian housing as well and killed a civilian.

The British response was to authorise a single attack on a German seaplane base on the island of Sylt.

There were no further attacks until 10 May, when the Germans attacked targets throughout France, Belgium and the Netherlands. They also dropped some bombs on Kent that night, although that was probably a navigation error.

So the first deliberate bombing of land targets was by Germany.

It doesn't really. But it is important to establish the facts with so many revisionist running around.

The British government at the start of the war ruled out any bombing that posed a risk to civilians. They kept to that policy as the Germans killed thousands of civilians in Poland, then in Norway. They only abandoned that policy, although they still restricted themselves to strictly military targets, following widespread German bombing in the west.

Hello Hop,

you are right about those revisionist running around or popping up in forums such as ours.

However constant ranting against Germans or bringing up "facts" in order to demonstrate that it was all the Germans who did the evil or came up with something evil first doesn't contribute either.

So if a "maybe" revisionist turns up, and forwards the "Blitz was due to Churchill" he could also be just an ill informed person. To counter this by forwarding that Hitler or Germany had killed thousands already by bombingraids in Poland, Holland, Spain etc. doesn't contribute to the before set argument or disclaims it- does it?

Now for my part, I haven't heard about a bombing of Kent on the 10th of May 1940.
I wouldn't know if the below website is correct or complete in regards to events of this kind - but it mirrors my knowledge.

World War 2 Timelines 1939-1945 - European Air War 1940 - Worldwar-2.net

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

ref bombs dropped on Kent May 1940 Try this www.rafbdhistory.co.uk cheers.Jason

__________________
WHEN YOU GO HOME, TELL THEM OF US AND SAY, FOR YOUR TOMORROW,WE GAVE OUR TODAY. Epitaph on the Kohima memorial .

Hello wtid45,

thanks, for the link - an interesting link to do some reading

Quote: In May 1940, the first German bomb to be dropped on Mainland Britain fell near to the city of Canterbury in Kent

But the first one on England mentioned in the same website was actually already

On November 6th 1939, a bomb was dropped on RAF Sullom Voe in the Shetlands - damn fast those Luftwaffe guys

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

The Shetland Isles belong to Scotland, not England.

ps The first German bomb on England was actually on the 24th December 1914, but that was a different war

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Well we Germans don't differentiate between Scotland, England and Wales - we also do not use the term Great Britain or United Kingdom - unless due to offical government use.

We just call the whole place England

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

I find this post difficult understand. Facts are used to prove the point in a debate.Some people may say that the Blitz was due to Churchill because he had the guts to face down Hitler and the country he lead Germany.Hitler did not start WW2 all on his own. The Blitzkrieg worked fine in continental Europe but the English Channel meant it had to turn into a bombing war sooner rather than later. The Luftwaffe was the only force Hitler could use directly and that is why Churchill refusedto send more RAF fighters to France when it all started going wrong.
Hitlers Germany at that time was evil no one can call it anything else Its Armed Forces invaded and murdered across Europe. It murdered more and more of its own citizens as the war went on. How else do you think we should describe the Germany of this time...a benign democracy perhaps.
Some may consider this a rant , that is their choice but I will not apolagise for Englands greatest Son seeing as he was one of The Good Guys and he did what was right.

I sense a hint of patriotism.

I'd have thought it does.

Not many people have. I believe the bombs fell in open countryside, and I'm sure they were meant for somewhere in France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

The bombing in the Orkneys was deliberate, though.

The point is that the Luftwaffe did not show restraint in the bombing war. At a time when the British and French banned the bombing of Germany, and when Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands didn't even contemplate it, the Germans bombed what they chose, regardless of civilian casualties. The Luftwaffe didn't say "we can't bomb Rotterdam, think of the civilian casualties", they instead sent the bombers and warned the Dutch they would do the same to other cities unless they surrendered.

With that in mind it's naive to think that British cities would be spared.

The Blitz didn't begin because of anything Britain did, any more than Rotterdam was bombed because of the Dutch. It was simply the next target for the Luftwaffe.

What does setting three things straight have to do with patriotism??

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

He won't be responding to your query. He has been shown the door for other posts that have since been removed.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Hello Hop and rhs,

I am aware that the following post will be putting oil into the flames. But sorry, I am simply getting tired about these endless accusations and fixed mindsets.

- the claim or to forward that Churchill caused the Blitz on England is to my interpretation absolutly correct, since he refused Hitlers peace offer.
However neglecting the fact and therefore ill informed:
Churchill (England) got targeted by Hitler and the Luftwaffe because he chose to fight the Nazis. Statements such as: Hitler started WWII in 1939 is also absolutly incorrect. That Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 is absolutly correct - that due to Englands, Churchills decision to fight the Nazis, the 2nd WW in Western Europe erupted already in 1939 and not later is also absolutly correct. That Hitler with Churchill around or not would have attacked England (in case that England would not have agreed to Hitlers terms) sooner or later is likely.

Due to the fact that Churchill anticipated the Nazis future expansion plans and therefore ridding England of any chance to dominate not to mention to survive an attack by Hitler, he decided upon a nowadays termed pre emtive strike.

That the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, and anyone who didn't fit into their agenda is the sad and sickening truth about them - however this agenda was not obvious to Churchill or anyone besides the inner circle of the Nazi Leadership in September 1939 since phase one and two in regards to KZ(1933 -1939) restricted itself onto Germans who didn't fit into the Nazi agenda and about 25,000 Jews arrested during the November Prognom 1938. The total KZ inmates later even reduced and counted less then 22,000 people when the attack on Poland started.

That the Luftwaffe did not show restraint in the bombing war is absolutly correct, that the RAF didn't either is also absolutly correct.
The RAF just couldn't do much in the beginning, simply because Bomber Command wasn't ready to implement a bombing war over Germanys territory in 1930/1940.

So when the Germans bomb it is all about inhumane and evil.
But when the English bomb it simply comes down to fighting Nazis - who's future crimes were not obvious to the English public in September 1939 till I guess until 1943/44.

Can anyone please forward an open newspaper article from England that indicates or proofs that the Englisch public in general was aware or realized that the Nazis plan to murder or murdered millions of Jews in 1939 -1940 -1941.
If this can be forwarded it would at least justify Churchills intentions as those of a war for humanity and not simply as "in the interest of England"

Obviously the French and others were not aware - otherwise they would or could have stepped in immediatly to help save humanity and wouldn't have waited to be attacked. Chamberlain must have missed out on this crucial information as well.

So who was the warmonger Churchill or Hitler? To me very obvious: both

One wanted to expand his country, the other wanted to upkeep his country's influence and power - both chose war as their instrument.

Who was the greatest danger to humanity? To me having past history available very obvious:Hitler and the Nazis

But to my believe this was not obvious to scale in September 1939.

War has never been good, and has never been justifiable - unless one defends himself or others against an agressive act which was not provoked, so what is the problem in admitting to history? - just because the name Churchill is involved?? or someone speaks up in favour for something German, or England is mentioned unfavourably?

Let me please sincerely appologize to anyone who will find this posting offensive, Nazi like or unbearable - it is absolutely not my intention - but I for my part feel that certain issues need to be outspoken in order to be hopefully clarified once and for all.

Now feel free to correct my point of view, or make live simple and just call me a revisionist.

Regards
Kruska

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

I am probably echoing a few other posters here, but Churchill was human, he made mistakes. Every single leader of World War Two made mistakes. However, I think his "goods" outweigh his "bads"and that too much of this discussion is focused on the "bads"

To give a short description of Churchill and his workings:

The embodiment and voice of Allied resistance to the Axis from May 1940 until the United States entered the war a year and a half later, Churchill was a graduate of Sandhurst Royal Military College (20th in class of 130) and had accumulated a great deal of battlefield experience in sixty-five adventurous years. This included clashes in India, celebrated exploits during the Boer War, and service as an officer on the Western Front during World War I (after 1925 Dardanelles campaign that he advocated as First Lord of the Admiralty became the disaster of Gallipoli). Once named prime minister, Churchill created for himself the additional office of Minister of Defense- appointing as his ministry chief of staff General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became his closest and most trusted military aide. The two met at least once every day with the chiefs of staff of all the military services (441 meetings in 1941 and 414 in 1944). This group ran Britain's military war, the chief's of staff becoming adept at restraining their pugnacious prime minister's more impractical schemes. Many of Churchill's ideas were practical, however, and displayed an inventiveness born of desperation, military experience, and an ever-inquiring mind. In 1940, he suggested the formation of small "striking parties," which evolved into special forces such as commandos. He was an early and fervent proponent of paratroops and development of specialized landing craft. He designed (in 1917) a prototype of the floating "Mulburry" harbors the Allies used at Normandy, and he advocated placing artillery along the English coast with sufficent range to fire across the English Channel.

Promising the British people nothing but "blood, sweat, toil, and tears," as he assumed wartime leadership, Churchill grimly told Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky in July 1940 that his general strategy was simply "to last out the next three months." Yet his strategic vision was generally more optimistic and sweeping, rooted in his absolute determination that the Allies would prevail- and that the far-flung British Empire must remain intact and ready for post-war challenges. To achieve these ends, he maintained the best possible relations with his allies (while growing increasingly wary of Soviet intentions for the future); encouraged maximum support from the British Dominions; backed effective guerrilla organizations in occupied countries; incorporated thousands of nationals of occupied countries into the British armed forces; and advocated his closing-the-ring strategy favoring operations around the periphery of Europe. His emphasis on the Mediterranean remained a sources of friction between Churchill and the Americans, who by late 1943 had had taken command of the Allied effort From their position of strength (and because of their eagerness to bring the Soviet Union into the war against Japan), the Americans became more willing to accommodate the Soviet Union during discussions of military strategy-and less willing to be swayed by Churchill's arguments. After one such argument was ignored at the November 28-December 1, 1943, Allied conference, Churchill wrote: "I realized at Teheran for the first time what a small nation we are. There I sat with the great Russian bear on one side of me with paws outstretched, and on the other side the great American buffalo, and between the two sat the poor little English donkey who was the only one, the only of the three, who knew the right way home."

David Kennedy

Just to prove the germans did occasionally make mistakes
Bombing of Dublin in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and i doubt that was the only one.

I agree with the poster that said the british had no way of knowing this and given that the germans bombed london in WWI its natural to assume that the english saw a repeat.

Personally i think eisenhower was the great man of WWII.
As for churchills world view i get the impression he had very little time for anyone outside brition,america or australia.

__________________

Churchill had no use for Australia and the Australians, and, for that matter, didn't think much of the Americans, either. But in Churchill's mind, the Irish and Canadians could do no wrong! LOL!