Children As Decoys

[ScottSA]

Ah, but according to the Law of Lefty Counterexample, one single counterexample negates everything. If an abortion clinic was bombed once by some fringe Christian anti-abortion group, obviously this entirely negates 1000s of daily killings, beheadings and riotings on a global scale by Islam. So here it is! The Charge of the Light Brigade! The British were driven to desperation by the Russians brutally defending Sevas....no wait...they were driven to desperation because they were fighting the occupiers of their....no wait...the brutal Russian winter...no...the damned Turks made them do i...

Most folks have such a poor sense of history. But it is one of the few things that make us human...recording or past. Too bad it is no longer taught with any seriousness outside of university or West Point et al.

What we have going on is a general revision of what happened over the last 100 years or so in some circles. It's pretty freaky to hear some folks describing things like the Bomber Offensive against Germany as American aggression. Another point that bothers me is selective history...much like talking about the 1948 War without mentioning the Grand Mufti of Jersusalem or the Jewish Stern/Irgun gangs. Or the 6 Day War without mentioning Nasser's attitude at the time. Or refering to Syria, Jordan and Egypt without the footnote that they were more or less on the Soviet/Warsaw Pact side during the Cold War. Not to forget the Holocaust denial so common these days from some quarters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These Muslim volunteer units under Haj Amin al-Husseini, called Hanjar (sword), were put in Waffen-SS units, fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. They participated in the massacre of civilians in Bosnia and volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia..."

-- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust

Let us not forget that the Arabs had years to fulfill the "aspirations" of the Palestinians for a "Palestinian homeland" long before the "Zionists" took over. Let's also not forget that there's nothing stopping Jordan making one today if they so desire.

[Canadian Blue]

Most folks have such a poor sense of history. But it is one of the few things that make us human...recording or past. Too bad it is no longer taught with any seriousness outside of university or West Point et al.

What we have going on is a general revision of what happened over the last 100 years or so in some circles. It's pretty freaky to hear some folks describing things like the Bomber Offensive against Germany as American aggression. Another point that bothers me is selective history...much like talking about the 1948 War without mentioning the Grand Mufti of Jersusalem or the Jewish Stern/Irgun gangs. Or the 6 Day War without mentioning Nasser's attitude at the time. Or refering to Syria, Jordan and Egypt without the footnote that they were more or less on the Soviet/Warsaw Pact side during the Cold War. Not to forget the Holocaust denial so common these days from some quarters.

Yeah Dresden, that was completely justified, even though it didn't really accomplish anything.

[DogOnPorch]

Let us not forget that the Arabs had years to fulfill the "aspirations" of the Palestinians for a "Palestinian homeland" long before the "Zionists" took over. Let's also not forget that there's nothing stopping Jordan making one today if they so desire.

Present company accepted...whenever I hear the word "Zionist" used "seriously" I know I'm dealing with someone who is living somewhere in the past...say around 1935. Zionism was a movement to gain a Jewish homeland...Israel is a fact.

Yeah, right. Why and how did you barge into a country thousands miles away, without any clue about what's going on, or any valid reasons to start a war. Killing thousands of innocents, destroying power structure that all but unleashed a full blown civil war with thousands more casualties. Is that what you meant?

I don't think ScottSA barged into Iraq...I may be wrong. Scott? Did you invade a country without permission?

Bad...bad...bad, Scott. I think you deserve this as punishment...heheh

---------------------------------------------------------------

We interrupt this program to annoy you and make things generally irritating.

---BBC Announcer: 'Monty Python's Flying Circus'.

[myata]

Obviously, there're people who will justify any of their acts as by definition moral and legal, while those of the opposition that would resist them as immoral and reprehensible. There's nothing new in this practice (in fact it goes all the way back to primordial tribalism) and no reasonable conclusion to any problme can result from it.

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah Dresden, that was completely justified, even though it didn't really accomplish anything.

Dresden, one of the final big combined US-UK-Canadian air raids of the European campaign, was actually in support of the Russian advance into Germany in a war where strategic bombing was becoming less important.

To quote Bomber Command at the time:

The Air Staff have now arranged that, subject to the overriding claims of attacks on enemy oil production and other approved target systems within the current directive, available effort should be directed against Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig or against other cities where severe bombing would not only destroy communications vital to the evacuation from the east, but would also hamper the movement of troops from the west.

However, that doesn't mean bombing Dresden...a medieval city with only the rail yard as a 'real' target...was a good thing for civilization. It was right out of a Brother's Grimm fairy tale and we blew it up at all humankind's expense. But the same can be said of dozens of major cities across Europe with rich histories.

So really...do you think the bomber offensive against Germany was a war crime? Or was it just another horror in an already long and horrible war? It is probably the most effective attack the Western Allies pulled off against Nazi Germany. The campaign drew 100,000s of troops from the Eastern Front (where they were very much needed) to arm the flak cannons around Germany's cities. Not to mention smashing German war production from a tide-water high in early 1944 to near nothing by 1945. It was a war winner.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe it is peace in our time.

---Neville Chamberlain, 1938

[Canadian Blue]

So really...do you think the bomber offensive against Germany was a war crime? Or was it just another horror in an already long and horrible war? It is probably the most effective attack the Western Allies pulled off against Nazi Germany. The campaign drew 100,000s of troops from the Eastern Front (where they were very much needed) to arm the flak cannons around Germany's cities. Not to mention smashing German war production from a tide-water high in early 1944 to near nothing by 1945. It was a war winner.

Not really, I think that when they were only suppose to "shatter" civilian morale; they had little effect. In some cases bombing actually worked to the German's advantage. I don't think the bombing of civilian's was the "war winner".

[DogOnPorch]

Not really, I think that when they were only suppose to "shatter" civilian morale; they had little effect. In some cases bombing actually worked to the German's advantage. I don't think the bombing of civilian's was the "war winner".

Personally, it looks like you know little to nothing about the combined bomber offensive...inspite of your military background which I find odd.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I came in here and saw this thing, the symbols, looking the way it looked... I wanted to get right in there and taxi it out.

---Paul Tibbets, upon seeing the first B-29 Superfortress.

[Canadian Blue]

Personally, it looks like you know little to nothing about the combined bomber offensive...inspite of your military background which I find odd.

Personally I find it odd that you would make such a statement, yet not be able to enlighten me further.

Dresden didn't accomplish much militarily. In fact during BMQ it was given as an example of what could be considered a war crime; despite the fact we were the "good" side. Considering the war was winding down in february 1945, the raid didn't accomplish much, and it left around 35,000 dead. Trying to break the civilian morale through mass bombing didn't work, the German's held out to the end. The British should have even known from their experience that if anything the bombing campaign united them even more so. Historian's often question whether bombing civilian's instead of military targets may have prolonged the war instead of shortened it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/ixportal.html

Not to mention smashing German war production from a tide-water high in early 1944 to near nothing by 1945. It was a war winner.

If we are to say that the reason the war was successful was because of bombing from 1944 to 1945 I'd disagree with you. The tide turned in 1942, most notably at Stalingrad. By 1944 it was highly believed that the German's would be defeated considering the fact the Allies had gained a foothold in Italy, and the Russian's were rolling over the Nazi's in the east. Once again it is a point of contention among many historian's that bombing civilian's may have, or not have helped the war effort.

http://www.onwar.com/articles/9809.htm

As for when the bombing worked to the German's advantage, an example of that would be Monte Cassino.

[Canadian Blue]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwt...ombing_03.shtml

The British bombing offensive was a failure when they concentrated on breaking civilian morale. Read the above link. Despite bombing the cities armament production continued to rise. Even when the bombing offensive proved to be somewhat useless it continued.

As well the bombing of France did prove to be successful, however this was precision bombing.

I believe these links to be accurate, unless the BBC is also lying or doesn't know anything about the bombing campaign during World War 2.

[Canadian Blue]

It is probably the most effective attack the Western Allies pulled off against Nazi Germany. The campaign drew 100,000s of troops from the Eastern Front (where they were very much needed) to arm the flak cannons around Germany's cities. Not to mention smashing German war production from a tide-water high in early 1944 to near nothing by 1945. It was a war winner.

I'm not sure how the campaign drew 100,000's of troops from the east, I'm not sure what you're referring to. In 1945 the German's were retreating in large numbers due to the Russian offensive. I can't find that number anywhere, but if you'd provide a link or a source I'd be more inclined to believe it. I thought that the German's simply drew upon the German population in order to arm flak cannon's, as they couldn't stand to lose 100,000's of troops from the east.

Most folks have such a poor sense of history. But it is one of the few things that make us human...recording or past. Too bad it is no longer taught with any seriousness outside of university or West Point et al.

I'd agree with you on that.

What we have going on is a general revision of what happened over the last 100 years or so in some circles. It's pretty freaky to hear some folks describing things like the Bomber Offensive against Germany as American aggression.

Not really, it's fine to question the tactics we used in World War 2. What's the point of studying history if you don't analyze it and learn from it. I'd question the ethics of the bombing campaign in World War 2, and how effective it really was during the war.

PS: When I say bombing campaign, I mean the bombing of primarily civilian centers to "break morale".

[DogOnPorch]

Monte Cassino

Yup...made a good fort...walls up or down.

When I say bombing campaign, I mean the bombing of primarily civilian centers to "break morale".

When I say combined bomber offensive...I mean just that.

The British bombing offensive was a failure when they concentrated on breaking civilian morale. Read the above link. Despite bombing the cities armament production continued to rise. Even when the bombing offensive proved to be somewhat useless it continued.

Night area bombing went from impossible to accurate with the help of electronics...and guidance radar grids. The first raids in 1940 were way off target. Hamburg, however, was a good example of 'on the money'.

Personally I find it odd that you would make such a statement, yet not be able to enlighten me further.

Father and an uncle were in Bomber Command...another uncle in 8th Airforce. I got a good dose of it when younger. I also had an uncle serving in the Waffen-SS in Yugoslavia who went on to be a translator at the war crime trials...as well as family members who survived the Holocaust...and died in the Holocaust. Twisted, huh? No..I'm not Jewish. What are your roots? Maybe we have something in common...

As for your other thoughts. The US 8th airforce entered the battle in the spring of 1942. I'm well aware of the Battle of Stalingrad and other turning points...more than you I'm willing to bet. Re: 1944...German war production hit its peek early that year. After that it was all downhill production-wise due to Allied bombing. The Soviets didn't engage in strategic bombing except for the odd Pe-8 raid over Berlin. The Soviets did however win hands down on the ground...especially with the destruction of Army Group Centre and Korsun pocket.

I'm not sure how the campaign drew 100,000's of troops from the east...

Troops from the Eastern Front were used to man the rising number of AAA around German cities. These soldiers were sorely missed.

Not really, it's fine to question the tactics we used in World War 2. What's the point of studying history if you don't analyze it and learn from it. I'd question the ethics of the bombing campaign in World War 2, and how effective it really was during the war.

There's 'questioning tactics' and then there's Holocaust denial and equally stupid things.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not know (of any developing holocaust) and again I would not have believed it.

---Julius Steicher

[myata]

Yes. It is because of a heavy devotion to Islam ...

Maybe and maybe not. Not so long ago, there hadn't been any problem with Islam. Ever wondered, what has changed since?

in some circles which promises glory in the afterlife for those who die in the service of Alah. The only other thing even remotely like it is the Bushido Code which which had Japanese diving into aircraft carriers and conducting suicide charges into machine guns. If desperate conditions alone were the reason for suicide bombers, history would have recorded them at numerous other desperate times and places.

Well, if someone decides to go and subdue other people to his will, should he expect that the fight will be (or should be) according to his rules? Wrong assumption, again. You go in, you may find something new - and there's no guarantee that it'll be a Geneva convention. So, if you had a choice to not go, and did it anyway, isn't it like you brought it upon yourself (and, btw the innocent bystanders who you never asked whether they wanted it)? And what's the point of whining about oppositions methods, now? They can be barbarians, and so on, but you still had that choice, to not go. Nothing can change that.

[Canadian Blue]

Night area bombing went from impossible to accurate with the help of electronics...and guidance radar grids. The first raids in 1940 were way off target. Hamburg, however, was a good example of 'on the money'.

I was talking more specifically of the raid's mentioned in the BBC article. It showed that the bombing offensive was a failure from 1942-1943. When the Allies did use precision bombing it was a success, however I was questioning the merit of breaking civilian morale through bombs.

Father and an uncle were in Bomber Command...another uncle in 8th Airforce. I got a good dose of it when younger. I also had an uncle serving in the Waffen-SS in Yugoslavia who went on to be a translator at the war crime trials...as well as family members who survived the Holocaust...and died in the Holocaust. Twisted, huh? No..I'm not Jewish. What are your roots? Maybe we have something in common...

As for your other thoughts. The US 8th airforce entered the battle in the spring of 1942. I'm well aware of the Battle of Stalingrad and other turning points...more than you I'm willing to bet. Re: 1944...German war production hit its peek early that year. After that it was all downhill production-wise due to Allied bombing. The Soviets didn't engage in strategic bombing except for the odd Pe-8 raid over Berlin. The Soviets did however win hands down on the ground...especially with the destruction of Army Group Centre and Korsun pocket.

You should be proud of that history. I'm sorry if I was offending your relatives service. They served their country, and should be considered honourable for doing so. However I think that afterwards we still have to question some of the tactics, and ask if we could have done better.

Troops from the Eastern Front were used to man the rising number of AAA around German cities. These soldiers were sorely missed.

Once again, can I see a link for that. I haven't read anything about 100,000's of troops going to Germany to main AA guns. From what I've read the German's couldn't lose anymore troops, especially after the defeat at Stalingrad, and the German's had plenty of people back home that could main the AA guns.

There's 'questioning tactics' and then there's Holocaust denial and equally stupid things.

Questioning the holocaust is stupid. However at the same time questioning how we could have perhaps saved more lives isn't stupid. We have to learn from each war we take part in how we could have done better, and what could have been done to avert it.

[ScottSA]

CB: since you're clearly relying on google U to come up with your rather desperate arguments (dunno how someone in the military doesn't know this, but...), I suggest you look at the United States Strategic Bombing Survey. It's the foremost primary source used by anyone with even a modicum of knowledge in strategic studies as regards WWII strategic bombing, and it's the primary source behind all the stuff you've googled up. It's not easy to find on google unless you know what you're looking for, and you clearly don't, so here's a link: http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed...groups/243.html

There are other primary sources too, including writings by Bomber Harris that I can't be bothered looking up for you, but in general, they agree that strategic bombing was exceptionally effective when used against industrial targets, and of limited value when used as Guilo Doucet (you won't find much about him at all on the net I suspect) thought it ought to be used, as an instrument of terror. I would argue that it WAS effective in Japan, when nukes became available. However, in Germany, Harris perhaps said it best (and I'm paraphrasing): that terror bombing in Hamburg and Dresden had the effect of pushing people into a pit, withdrawing the ladder, and throwing rocks at them until they climbed out.

What I'd like to know is why you are forever loping into subjects you know nothing about, becoming enmired in quicksand, and then stupidly insisting upon arguing until you're well over your head.

[Canadian Blue]

CB: since you're clearly relying on google U to come up with your rather desperate arguments (dunno how someone in the military doesn't know this, but...),

Sorry, I prefer using what historian's have documented.

It's the foremost primary source used by anyone with even a modicum of knowledge in strategic studies as regards WWII strategic bombing, and it's the primary source behind all the stuff you've googled up. It's not easy to find on google unless you know what you're looking for, and you clearly don't, so here's a link: http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed...groups/243.html

Then why does it seem that so many historian's argue that the bombing campaign from 1942-1943 wasn't very successful. May I also ask why the BBC is lying?

There are other primary sources too, including writings by Bomber Harris that I can't be bothered looking up for you

It was covered in the link provided. Bomber Harris proved to be a failure. He didn't really effect the German war machine that much, and was attempting to break the morale of the citizens.

they agree that strategic bombing was exceptionally effective when used against industrial targets, and of limited value when used as Guilo Doucet (you won't find much about him at all on the net I suspect) thought it ought to be used, as an instrument of terror.

Actually, if you bothered to read the link to the BBC...

One week after the area bombing directive was issued, Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris was appointed as the new head of Bomber Command. Harris believed that air power could be decisive in winning modern wars, and could help to prevent the slaughter of ground forces that he had witnessed in the trenches of World War One.

Harris launched 'thousand bomber raids' on big cities such as Cologne or Hamburg, whose scale of destruction made Harris confident that a concentrated campaign against Hitler's capital, Berlin, could render 'Operation Overlord', the planned invasion of German-occupied Europe, unnecessary.

'... he declared that his bomber force could bring about the collapse of Germany by April 1944.'

In December 1943, he declared that his bomber force could bring about the collapse of Germany by April 1944. Yet Harris's high hopes proved unfounded. By the end of March, German morale was nowhere near breaking point, and Hitler's war machine was far from crippled. German armament production continued to rise until mid 1944.

The failure of the British bombing offensive in the winter of 1943/44 was all the more disappointing for Bomber Command, because by this time their American allies were beginning to make an impact.

The US Army Air Force had joined the strategic bombing campaign in the summer of 1942. They had come committed to 'precision' bombing in daylight. However, their bombers proved easy prey for the German day fighters. Heavy losses convinced the Americans that they needed long-range escort fighters to protect their bombers. These fighters lured the Luftwaffe into dogfights, and by the spring of 1944 they were gaining air superiority.

It was not, as Harris had expected, the destruction of German cities that proved decisive for the Allies in 1944 - it was the superiority of the RAF over the Luftwaffe in the air. It enabled the bomber forces to neutralise strategic and tactical targets in France, which was crucial for the success of the D-Day landings and the subsequent advance of Allied ground forces.

However, in Germany, Harris perhaps said it best (and I'm paraphrasing): that terror bombing in Hamburg and Dresden had the effect of pushing people into a pit, withdrawing the ladder, and throwing rocks at them until they climbed out.

Historian's often disagree, and I'll have to agree with the historian's on the subject. Since you have failed to provide a link supporting your claim I will simply brush it off.

Bomber Harris has been proven to be a failure, the American's were the ones who had taken control of the air.

How is firebombing women and children ever a good thing?

What I'd like to know is why you are forever loping into subjects you know nothing about, becoming enmired in quicksand, and then stupidly insisting upon arguing until you're well over your head.

Not really, I proved my case, and you failed to provide a counter argument. The fact that you can only resort to the old "stupidity" argument is fairly telling. It's a sign of weakness on your part.

My sources say otherwise, and thus far they have much better backing than yours. It seem's that you are not able to comprehend the notion that the west has ever done wrong, unfortunately, I will have to correct it. But then again, it's hard to deal with someone who is so detached from reality; not to mention one who obviously has totalitarian beliefs.

Once again, build up your own case for why the offensive was good, since you seem to be a big fan of killing civilian's. Provide the link's, your case is pure folly based on your laughable arguments.

[Peter F]

ScottSA:

There are other primary sources too, including writings by Bomber Harris ... in general, they agree that strategic bombing was exceptionally effective when used against industrial targets, and of limited value when used as Guilo Doucet (you won't find much about him at all on the net I suspect) thought it ought to be used, as an instrument of terror.

Harris always said his night bombing campain would win the war. Not really surprising that he claims that strategic bombing was exceptionally effective.

Unfortunately, Harris also directed his bombing campaign against the German populace. His aim was to make thier lives as miserable as possible - and he succeeded admirably. Harris was not pleased with being forced to direct his bombers against industrial targets after the Casablanca conference. He considered it a misuse of resources. Every heavy bomber lost to 'tactical' targets or lost to u-boat patrols was a weakening of his superb weapon.

As you have pointed out

Harris perhaps said it best (and I'm paraphrasing): that terror bombing in Hamburg and Dresden had the effect of pushing people into a pit, withdrawing the ladder, and throwing rocks at them until they climbed out.

The real value of the bombing campaign was its direction towards the destruction of the German transportation network beginning in early 1944. And of course the destruction of the Luftwaffe as an effective force once the P47's and P51's appeared in large numbers.

It was the destruction of the transportation network, coupled with the loss of the Eastern coalfields to the Russians , that directly led to the diminuation of German industrial output, not the Strategic Bombing of industry .

Dog on Porch is correct, I think, to point out the tremendous resources the Germans put into the air defence network to battle the bombers. However, Bomber Commands aim was to destroy the morale of the German workers - not to force Germany to commit vast amounts of material and manpower to defending Germany.

So the RAF's bombing campaign was called 'terror bombing' by the Germans and rightly so because that was its very intent - to terrorize. It was right out of Douhets book.

But it worked, despite Harris' intent, Thanks to rational direction from the Casablanca conference.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Peter F

[ScottSA]

Harris always said his night bombing campain would win the war. Not really surprising that he claims that strategic bombing was exceptionally effective.

The USSBS concludes that strategic bombing was extremely effective against industrial targets. Read what I wrote. It eventually collapsed German war production.

Bomber command's main thrust was not the destruction of german morale. That particular attempt was made only later in the war...most bombing of Germany was aimed at industrial areas and only hit civilian areas because the technology to pinpoint bomb didn't exist. The british used night bombing to attempt terror attacks somewhat more frequently, the the US focussed on day attacks on industrial areas by and large.

[Peter F]

But back to the point of the thread. Terrorists using children as decoys and using 'WMD' s (Chlorine).

Surely there is no one amongst us who think terrorists are good people? I don't.

Terrorists are fuckin arseholes who deserve whatever miserable end they meet. There is no morality in using children as shields or blowing up just whoever happens to be there in market places.

But then, thats terrorism. Lets all sign a petition and send it to Al Jezeera for broadcast.

Something like 'We think terrorists are scum. Please stop being terrorists and join the human race. If possible we recommend terrorists convert to christianity. Try it - you'll like it.'

There is terrorism because terrorism works. If the terrorists have cottoned on to using children as decoys then they will use children as decoys. Pointless and random killing of innocents undermines the credibility of the government in power. Thus the persistance of terrorism.

The moral West has failed miserably in Iraq. They cannot stop car bombs going off, or children being used as decoys, or chlorine gas being released.

All the condemnations in the world don't mean squat, when the terrorists successfully blow up stuff. Every car bomb or IED that goes off is proof that the Gov't of Iraq and its security apparatus is useless.

And thus Democracy will not thrive but will fail as it has not the ability to provide security to its citizens.

The failure of Western policy in Iraq has been in thinking that the Military might of the USofA will be able to provide the security necessary for Democracy to thrive.

It was folly.

[DogOnPorch]

The night bomber offensive...while a success overall, ran into trouble because the Germans weren't stupid. They made a grid of their own where they placed a nightfighter in each square that hung around much like a spider waiting for a fly. The Allies suffered greatly. Halifaxes and Lancasters falling like 9-pins. Aircraft like the Heinkel 219 Owl Me-210 and Me-110 carved huge holes in the ranks of Bomber Command.

As for the Luftwaffe flak units. Using a radar aimed 88mm or 128mm flak gun with timed fuses (night or day) is not something a civilian does. This isn't Iraqis shooting into the air like New Years in San Diego. It takes a trained crew. Being in the military I'd expect you to know this. As for where the flak units were drawn from...where do you think the bulk of the Wehrmacht was located? North Africa? No...over 80% of Germany's ground units were fighting in Russia. The demand for anti-aircraft units around German facilities jumped from nothing in 1940 to "O mein Gott!!!" by 1944.

Guilo Doucet...

Both he and HG Wells (The Shape Of Things To Come) predicted strategic bombing against civilians.

------------------------------------------------

We'll meet again...don't know where...don't know when...

---Vera Lynn

[Peter F]

The night bomber offensive...while a success overall, ran into trouble because the Germans weren't stupid. They made a grid of their own where they placed a nightfighter in each square that hung around much like a spider waiting for a fly. The Allies suffered greatly. Halifaxes and Lancasters falling like 9-pins. Aircraft like the Heinkel 219 Owl Me-210 and Me-110 carved huge holes in the ranks of Bomber Command.

As for the Luftwaffe flak units. Using a radar aimed 88mm or 128mm flak gun with timed fuses (night or day) is not something a civilian does. This isn't Iraqis shooting into the air like New Years in San Diego. It takes a trained crew. Being in the military I'd expect you to know this. As for where the flak units were drawn from...where do you think the bulk of the Wehrmacht was located? North Africa? No...over 80% of Germany's ground units were fighting in Russia. The demand for anti-aircraft units around German facilities jumped from nothing in 1940 to "O mein Gott!!!" by 1944.

Guilo Doucet...

Both he and HG Wells (The Shape Of Things To Come) predicted strategic bombing against civilians.

------------------------------------------------

We'll meet again...don't know where...don't know when...

---Vera Lynn

I actually read Douhet. I found his book amongst my grandfathers boxes when I was 14 or so. I thought it was nuts. I read it again when I found out that Guilo was considered an air power theorist who had alot of influence amongst the various air force chiefs. I still thought it was nuts. Course that was years after WWII with a fair amount of hindsight.

Interesting that you associate him with HG Wells...as I consider Douhets book to read more like science fiction than anything else....though I have not read any of Mr.Wells none SF stuff

[Canadian Blue]

As for the Luftwaffe flak units. Using a radar aimed 88mm or 128mm flak gun with timed fuses (night or day) is not something a civilian does. This isn't Iraqis shooting into the air like New Years in San Diego. It takes a trained crew.

Which is why one would think they would train German's at home to do this instead of sending 100,000's of troops back to Germany from the Eastern Front.

As for where the flak units were drawn from...where do you think the bulk of the Wehrmacht was located? North Africa? No...over 80% of Germany's ground units were fighting in Russia. The demand for anti-aircraft units around German facilities jumped from nothing in 1940 to "O mein Gott!!!" by 1944.

They could have very well used the German populace at home, which would make more sense. Why would you pull troops out of the front where you are losing ground to main AA gun's back at home. Once again, can you at the very least give a link to back this up.

Being in the military I'd expect you to know this.

I'm not aware of our military using 88's. As well I'd hope that our government would have the common sense to train people back at home instead of pulling people out of the front.

The USSBS concludes that strategic bombing was extremely effective against industrial targets. Read what I wrote. It eventually collapsed German war production.

In 1944 it did, because they used effective bombing techniques. From 1942-1943 German war production increased because of Bomber Harris and his plan to end the war by April 1944 by bombing German civilians. In 1945 their really wasn't a point to bombing, what was the intent, to kill as many German civilian's as possible; Germany was pretty well ruined.

[DogOnPorch]

They could have very well used the German populace at home, which would make more sense. Why would you pull troops out of the front where you are losing ground to main AA gun's back at home. Once again, can you at the very least give a link to back this up.

German anti-aircraft units were part of the Luftwaffe. You're free to track each unit's movements and see where they ended up.

http://www.ww2.dk/ground/flak.html

Which is why one would think they would train German's at home to do this instead of sending 100,000's of troops back to Germany from the Eastern Front.

That's nice. Keep thinking those warm thoughts. We'll crush the Soviet Don Front, swing north and take Moscow by winter...lol.

I'm not aware of our military using 88's. As well I'd hope that our government would have the common sense to train people back at home instead of pulling people out of the front.

Don't be daft...they are German weapons.

In 1944 it did, because they used effective bombing techniques. From 1942-1943 German war production increased because of Bomber Harris and his plan to end the war by April 1944 by bombing German civilians. In 1945 their really wasn't a point to bombing, what was the intent, to kill as many German civilian's as possible; Germany was pretty well ruined.

But not defeated. Germany literally fought to the last possible moment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my Browning.

---Hermann Goering

[DogOnPorch]

Peter F:Interesting that you associate him with HG Wells...as I consider Douhets book to read more like science fiction than anything else....though I have not read any of Mr.Wells none SF stuff

"The Shape of Things to Come" is a very interesting read. Dated in many ways, of course...but remarkably accurate in some predictions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We may brave human laws, but we cannot resist natural ones.

---Jules Verne

[ScottSA]

I actually read Douhet. I found his book amongst my grandfathers boxes when I was 14 or so. I thought it was nuts. I read it again when I found out that Guilo was considered an air power theorist who had alot of influence amongst the various air force chiefs. I still thought it was nuts. Course that was years after WWII with a fair amount of hindsight.

Douhet was extremely influential between the wars. When the B-17 began rolling off the production lines, it was seen as the fulfillment of Douhet's vision. In terms of morality, Douhet made the simple but effective case that war is hell, so the faster you get it over with, the better.

[myata]

... that war is hell, so the faster you get it over with, the better.

"And it would seem like wisdom but for the warning of my heart."

J R R Tolkien "The Fellowship of the Ring"