OT:splendid WWII movie you'll never see:(

[Intimidator]

The fact is UE. It's a lot easier to think of it in numbers rather than human beings.

Intimidator,

[Thermodyne]

Hey guys, you are all missing a major point here. In an all out war like WW 2, civilians are legitimate targets. Civilians make the materials of war. Farmers contribute, wives contribute and a 15 year old can be expected to be under arms an two to three years. Any building can be used for shelter, and any city is a legitimate target. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure was as important as bombing transportation and industry.

Also, while the massive 1000 plane raids over Europe were very much a welcome propaganda tool, they were also the end result of pure economics. When you can produce enough bombers to overwhelm the local defenses, and then carpet bomb the whole urban area of a city, you win. You no longer need to hit a small target. And you no longer worry about a single hospital or school. You bomb them all and they get lost in the weight of the raid as a whole.

In a nut shell, governments do not make war, Nations make war. And as citizens, we are all libel for the actions of our nations. The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb, and they knew that the V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. Also, people tend to forget that England was done for by 1944-45. Two major wars in less than thirty years had gutted her manpower, and the people at home were very tired of war. The V1’s and V2’s had driven moral down to levels not seen since 1940-41, and the fiasco that was Market Garden had spent a vast portion of her offensive capability. Also there was the issue of supplying the troops on the continent, their maximum numbers were dependant on how many tons of supply that could be trucked to them from the few working docks on the coast.

Let’s look at a few points about how small the allied advantage could have been in the winter of 44-45. The allied armies had shot their bolts and were in need of extended re-supply and refit. The ground pounders were being rotated for rest and replaced with green troops. The allies had reached their limit as far as supplying troops at the front was concerned. Fuel was being allocated on tactical level. Only the air forces were still able to maintain the offensive, but winter is not good air weather in northern Europe. The Americans were trying to bury the actual casualty figures for their armored units. The Sherman’s were death traps, only the weight of their numbers and the ease with which they could be repaired made them viable. But crews were refusing to fight them against German armor. The English were very busy trying to eliminate V2 launch sites and were very much in defensive mode. Turning south to pinch off the bulge used up their reserves. And while Patton made one hell of a tactical redeployment to strike the southern side of the bulge, he ran the tracks and wheels off of his army in so doing. Then the Germans launched a second counter offensive. The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

Now what if the Nazis had developed the bomb? We knew they were close. What if they tested their first one on the Soviet armies in Poland? Then mounted the second on a V5 and dropped it on London? Or, what if the V2’s began to carry gas, what if the Soviets ran into clouds of nerve agent when they crossed into Germany? There was still a lot that could have gone wrong late in the war. And the Government of England was not completely stable. The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it. Were you in a position of authority at that time, would you have left 2500+ heavy bombers to chase trains and bomb factories here and there? Or would you have used them to cut the heart out of Germany’s rotting carcass? And let’s not forget that Germany had done the same to England early in the war. Not quite on the same scale, but thay had sent everything that would fly on more than one occasion. No, I don’t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Thermodyne, I am afraid I have to strongly refute almost all of your points.

civilians are legitimate targets

Sort of.
Allied command started by bombing all known civilian infrastructures, but due to lack of results, switched to transportation and industry. The case of Dresden has no military justification. For an explanation of it, you should look for political reasons.
Source : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2

1000 plane raids over Europe .. were also the end result of pure economics.

False.
The goal of the air war was first to break the German into submission. Problem was that the bomber's precision was really bad until 1944. Due to navigation difficulty, they used to release their bombs in a 5 miles area from their targets ! In 1944, bombers started to use a new organisation and new navigation systems which reduced the area to 400 meters. So before 44, you would need hundred of bombers to destroy a single sheltered factory. That is why large towns were easier targets, but from 44, it really became a possibility to crush the German industry from the sky. And contrary to the popular belief, it was done by bombing the facilities not the towns
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Perret's Air War.

The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb.

Wrong.
German Nuclear research was deprived of resources because scientists could not assure the Nazi power that their work would lead to a weapon in a short time frame. Instead, resources were transferred to rocket and plane development.

V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US

On a military point of view, the achievement of all V weapons is null. It was a terror weapon which failed in its objective to submit UK into peace. Even if hypothetical V3 were send on the US coast, it would not have changed anything, and would have also failed to break the will to fight of the US population. Rather the contrary. Did Pearl Harbor or 09/11 broke the will of US population ?
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Gilbert Martin's History of the Twentieth Century

The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it.
.............
The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

This is the worst part of your post.
First, Market Garden : primary goal of it was to open the way to the Ruhr and break the German army on the western front. It failed. However, it achieved to generate huge attritions both in men and AFV to the Wermacht, while the allied had plenty of both. After Market Garden and Bulge offensive, Hitler was convinced the western allied were spend, and would be unable to mount another offensive for the year to come. A few weeks later Patton broke through the Siegfried Line in the south and Montgomery made a breakthought in the north, opening the way to the Ruhr. Supply has been a temporary problem. Never a critical one. In fact, supply has been the strongest strength of US army for the whole war.
About UK now :
UK suffered around 715 000 dead from WW1, and around 450 000 dead in WW2(including civilians). Compare this to the 1 800 000 dead Germans in WW1, then to the 5 500 000 dead of WW2 and you can start laughing at your “gutted manpower” statement.
For the “very tired of war”, the intended peace agreement was made public at Yalta : German capitulation without negotiations. And the UK population massively supported it. No one in UK was thinking of ending the war without Hitler's head on a pike. Even less when at Last, victory was in sight since the success of allied landing in Europe, surrender of Italy and the victory in Africa. We are not speaking about 1941 here, but about middle/end 1944.
Sources : For UK moral situation : any UK newspaper archive you like. Take your pick.
For casualties : Boris Urlanis' War and Populations.
Strategic situation : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Guderian's Achtung Panzer, Liddell Hart's The other side of the hill and Manstein's Lost Victories.

As a conclusion, you are completely off mark. End of 1944, the writing was on the wall, as all German generals knew. Germany never went near achieving a nuclear bomb. It is an Hollywood picture, not History. UK population never arrived near breaking point. It is a lie.
I recommend you to read Liddell's Hart books. He is probably the most respected WW2 historian. You may know that Blitzkrieg is the translation of “Lightning War”, expression created by Liddell Hart when he was advocating new strategies for AFV in the 30s. As a side note, he was not listened in UK, even less in France but Guderian had his strategy papers translated and applied to the German army.

[ February 18, 2004, 15:11: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
No, I don’t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet.

And more liberals should use that freedom to stand up to leaders who use fear and lies to get their countries into wars for political and ideological gain like in Germany.

The problem with Germany was that there were too many fascists and not enough liberals - if you ask me. When I read stuff that some people write it makes me wonder if we are starting to have the same problem here in the U.S.

[ February 18, 2004, 18:46: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Thermodyne, I am afraid I have to strongly refute almost all of your points.

quote:

---

civilians are legitimate targets

Sort of.
Allied command started by bombing all known civilian infrastructures, but due to lack of results, switched to transportation and industry. The case of Dresden has no military justification. For an explanation of it, you should look for political reasons.
Source : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2

1000 plane raids over Europe .. were also the end result of pure economics.

False.
The goal of the air war was first to break the German into submission. Problem was that the bomber's precision was really bad until 1944. Due to navigation difficulty, they used to release their bombs in a 5 miles area from their targets ! In 1944, bombers started to use a new organisation and new navigation systems which reduced the area to 400 meters. So before 44, you would need hundred of bombers to destroy a single sheltered factory. That is why large towns were easier targets, but from 44, it really became a possibility to crush the German industry from the sky. And contrary to the popular belief, it was done by bombing the facilities not the towns
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Perret's Air War.

The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb.

Wrong.
German Nuclear research was deprived of resources because scientists could not assure the Nazi power that their work would lead to a weapon in a short time frame. Instead, resources were transferred to rocket and plane development.

V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US

On a military point of view, the achievement of all V weapons is null. It was a terror weapon which failed in its objective to submit UK into peace. Even if hypothetical V3 were send on the US coast, it would not have changed anything, and would have also failed to break the will to fight of the US population. Rather the contrary. Did Pearl Harbor or 09/11 broke the will of US population ?
Sources : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Gilbert Martin's History of the Twentieth Century

The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it.
.............
The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

This is the worst part of your post.
First, Market Garden : primary goal of it was to open the way to the Ruhr and break the German army on the western front. It failed. However, it achieved to generate huge attritions both in men and AFV to the Wermacht, while the allied had plenty of both. After Market Garden and Bulge offensive, Hitler was convinced the western allied were spend, and would be unable to mount another offensive for the year to come. A few weeks later Patton broke through the Siegfried Line in the south and Montgomery made a breakthought in the north, opening the way to the Ruhr. Supply has been a temporary problem. Never a critical one. In fact, supply has been the strongest strength of US army for the whole war.
About UK now :
UK suffered around 715 000 dead from WW1, and around 450 000 dead in WW2(including civilians). Compare this to the 1 800 000 dead Germans in WW1, then to the 5 500 000 dead of WW2 and you can start laughing at your “gutted manpower” statement.
For the “very tired of war”, the intended peace agreement was made public at Yalta : German capitulation without negotiations. And the UK population massively supported it. No one in UK was thinking of ending the war without Hitler's head on a pike. Even less when at Last, victory was in sight since the success of allied landing in Europe, surrender of Italy and the victory in Africa. We are not speaking about 1941 here, but about middle/end 1944.
Sources : For UK moral situation : any UK newspaper archive you like. Take your pick.
For casualties : Boris Urlanis' War and Populations.
Strategic situation : Liddell Hart's History of World War 2, Guderian's Achtung Panzer, Liddell Hart's The other side of the hill and Manstein's Lost Victories.

As a conclusion, you are completely off mark. End of 1944, the writing was on the wall, as all German generals knew. Germany never went near achieving a nuclear bomb. It is an Hollywood picture, not History. UK population never arrived near breaking point. It is a lie.
I recommend you to read Liddell's Hart books. He is probably the most respected WW2 historian. You may know that Blitzkrieg is the translation of “Lightning War”, expression created by Liddell Hart when he was advocating new strategies for AFV in the 30s. As a side note, he was not listened in UK, even less in France but Guderian had his strategy papers translated and applied to the German army.

---

No time for a detailed argument right now, I’m at work. But to start with, let’s suggest that you find a modern historian. Hart died in 70 (?) I think. And while he was an innovator of early armored tactics, he was not privy to the intelligence gathered on the German nuclear research program. Much of this has only come to light because of forced declassification here in the states. His work is also tainted by his dissatisfaction with the fame that those who cam later gathered by using his ideas. Also, he was never more than a lukewarm supporter of strategic bombing. Most armored theorists feel that the role of airpower should be focused on ground support. If you search Kings Collage for every record that Hart ever had access to, you will find no mention of German weapons grade Uranium production levels for 1944-45. But the US archives have been found to hold quit a lot of information now that the story of the Uranium’s capture has gone public.

Your comment on the bombers only supports my position. The early missions could not put the needed number of planes over the target to overwhelm the defenses. Strategic bombing in Europe was still evolving at the end of the war. The B29’s over Japan proved the theory further. Then the Bomb changed the game before the theory was ever fully mature. But the targets remained the same. Be it a fleet of B29s or a single SS18, the target is a major city. Sure today some weapons will be targeted on their counter parts in a first strike profile, but the majority of the weapons will fly to major cities.

On you use of the popular press as a source for measuring the moral of the British people, I would remind you that the press was on a very tight leash during the war, and I would suggest that you read the personal correspondence between Churchill and FDR. These letters paint a much different picture.

And Market Garden was pure stupidity. Map table maneuver at its worst. And a waste of fuel that would have been better used elsewhere. Illusions of North African Grandeur.

[ February 18, 2004, 18:49: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[AMF]

Just read this...all I can say is WHOA!

Will refute later.

At work now

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Hey guys, you are all missing a major point here. In an all out war like WW 2, civilians are legitimate targets. Civilians make the materials of war. Farmers contribute, wives contribute and a 15 year old can be expected to be under arms an two to three years. Any building can be used for shelter, and any city is a legitimate target. The destruction of the civilian infrastructure was as important as bombing transportation and industry.

Also, while the massive 1000 plane raids over Europe were very much a welcome propaganda tool, they were also the end result of pure economics. When you can produce enough bombers to overwhelm the local defenses, and then carpet bomb the whole urban area of a city, you win. You no longer need to hit a small target. And you no longer worry about a single hospital or school. You bomb them all and they get lost in the weight of the raid as a whole.

In a nut shell, governments do not make war, Nations make war. And as citizens, we are all libel for the actions of our nations. The allies knew that the Germans were on the verge of a fission bomb, and they knew that the V5 (4?) was a few technical problems away from flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. The Allies were in no position to not press their advantage once they had gained it. Also, people tend to forget that England was done for by 1944-45. Two major wars in less than thirty years had gutted her manpower, and the people at home were very tired of war. The V1?s and V2?s had driven moral down to levels not seen since 1940-41, and the fiasco that was Market Garden had spent a vast portion of her offensive capability. Also there was the issue of supplying the troops on the continent, their maximum numbers were dependant on how many tons of supply that could be trucked to them from the few working docks on the coast.

Let?s look at a few points about how small the allied advantage could have been in the winter of 44-45. The allied armies had shot their bolts and were in need of extended re-supply and refit. The ground pounders were being rotated for rest and replaced with green troops. The allies had reached their limit as far as supplying troops at the front was concerned. Fuel was being allocated on tactical level. Only the air forces were still able to maintain the offensive, but winter is not good air weather in northern Europe. The Americans were trying to bury the actual casualty figures for their armored units. The Sherman?s were death traps, only the weight of their numbers and the ease with which they could be repaired made them viable. But crews were refusing to fight them against German armor. The English were very busy trying to eliminate V2 launch sites and were very much in defensive mode. Turning south to pinch off the bulge used up their reserves. And while Patton made one hell of a tactical redeployment to strike the southern side of the bulge, he ran the tracks and wheels off of his army in so doing. Then the Germans launched a second counter offensive. The allies had to be wondering just how beaten Germany was at that point.

Now what if the Nazis had developed the bomb? We knew they were close. What if they tested their first one on the Soviet armies in Poland? Then mounted the second on a V5 and dropped it on London? Or, what if the V2?s began to carry gas, what if the Soviets ran into clouds of nerve agent when they crossed into Germany? There was still a lot that could have gone wrong late in the war. And the Government of England was not completely stable. The people of England had been at war a very long time and were worn down by the weight of it. Were you in a position of authority at that time, would you have left 2500+ heavy bombers to chase trains and bomb factories here and there? Or would you have used them to cut the heart out of Germany?s rotting carcass? And let?s not forget that Germany had done the same to England early in the war. Not quite on the same scale, but thay had sent everything that would fly on more than one occasion. No, I don?t think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Good. I alway welcome a good argument.

However, I will wait before arguing further that you cite a few authors to support your views.

Note I sometime have doubts about which authors can be trusted. I am still trying to find the name of the author of a recent book about D Day. Some parts of the book were ok, but the strategic situation painted was something like "if it didn't work, the russians would have made a separate peace.". That is why I am quite cautious about authors, waiting to see how they fare against each others.

Speaking of which, Liddell Hart has indeed some detractors (Montgomery first above all). However, turn the way you want but you'll still have one of the most (if not the most) respected WW2 historian. His "History of WW2" and "The Other side of the Hill" are classics.
Another author to consider seriously is Boris Urlanis. Serious work indeed.

Waiting for your answer.

[AMF]

Unk_E,

No, I think we're on the same page, we probably came at it from different directions (me from a PolSci/PolTheory/Just War Theory perspective) and you from a practical perspective. I was responding to Thermo's orignal post, not yours.

But, on second thought, I think I'm going to pass becuase I just noted another comment: " I don't think the allies can be faulted for the bombings, to do so is just more of the revisionist liberal crap that is so popular these days. I think these people should take a moment and remember why they are free to have these heated debates on an open medium like the internet."

When statements like this get thrown out there debate, almost by definition, becomes impossible.

And, I am tired of political debates in gaming forums. I get too worked up and it taints my later Posts.

Ta,

Alarik

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Good. I alway welcome a good argument.

However, I will wait before arguing further that you cite a few authors to support your views.

Note I sometime have doubts about which authors can be trusted. I am still trying to find the name of the author of a recent book about D Day. Some parts of the book were ok, but the strategic situation painted was something like "if it didn't work, the russians would have made a separate peace.". That is why I am quite cautious about authors, waiting to see how they fare against each others.

Speaking of which, Liddell Hart has indeed some detractors (Montgomery first above all). However, turn the way you want but you'll still have one of the most (if not the most) respected WW2 historian. His "History of WW2" and "The Other side of the Hill" are classics.
Another author to consider seriously is Boris Urlanis. Serious work indeed.

Waiting for your answer.

[Thermodyne]

Ok here is a direct quote for you:

"I reported for the first time orally to the Fuehrer that if these aerial attacks continued, a rapid end of the war might be the consequence."
Speer to Survey Interrogators on the Hamburg attacks.


Source is the US post WW2 bombing survey documents.

[tesco samoa]

Hey can he not quote himself. As he has a good knowledge of the events of WW2. And most books on WW2 are based on opinion at that time. It is the nature of writting about the most complex event in human history. An event where most of the knowledge behind the decisions are still locked away.