The allied bombing of Germany/Europe

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

As an American I feel horrible and ashamed of this. I was just talking to Malte on MSN about this and a few other things. America suffered less than Europe in WWII. A large number of cities in Europe were almost completly destroyed, cities like Dresden and Hamburg for instance.

[landbeforetimelover]

More deaths and damage don't make the situation any better.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

I know that I'm just saying American cities and citizens did not have to worry about nightly and daily attacks from heavy bombers.

[General Grievous]

NEWSFLASH: Germany and Japan bombed people too.  That was the acceptable way of fighting way of fighting wars back then.  Now can we please move on because complaining about it won't magically change the past.

[LBTDiclonius]

Huh, so many wars in the US and germany. We can't change the past sadly.

[Mirumoto_Kenjiro]

From what I learned in tactics during WW2, there had been two different tactics of bombing for different purposes.  The first is strategic bombing to disrupt an enemy's direct war effort, such as factories and supply lines.  The other being large area bombing of cities in general to demoralize the enemy.  The issue to the first was that you're dealing with unguided bombs on targets that could most likely be next to residential neighborhoods or civilian structures, meaning collateral damage.  The other never really works, especially with a determined enemy, and I'm certain it's a violation in the rules of war.

The reason America took less damage than other nations was simply because of the natural bodies of water between us and the enemy, although they did make attempts to strike us on the homeland.  And not to forget that America wasn't the first with the idea of attacking civilian towns.  When Germany attacked from Poland to Britain, they discovered that doing this causes civilians to panic and jam important roadways, hindering military movement.  So Germany made this standard.  And Japan launched thousands of balloons attached with bombs to strike the United States, and the ones that made it did kill up to a dozen people.  The only thing fortunate for the US is that the jet stream sending the balloons their way was during the winter, where there's not a high fire danger.

Sorry if I'm rambling.

[Malte279]

Now can we please move on because complaining about it won't magically change the past.

Why this reluctance to talk about it?
It is true that examining history cannot alter the past, but looking at history we may draw lessons for the presence in order to improve the future.
Perhaps it would be good to change the topic of the thread from "allied bombing of Germany/Europe" to bomb warfare in general.
I do not believe that there would be a very productive thread if we interpreted it to be about assigning blame to nations.
Make no mistake, not only had Germany unquestionably started the war in Europe but Germans had shown very little regard for civilian victims to bomb warfare whenever it was Germans dropping the bombs. German zeppelins and bombers dropped bombs on London (among other) in WW1 already, in Guernica they created a terrible precedent in 1937 (and any pretenses that it had been all about destroying a stone bridge are reduced to absurdity by the fact that the bombs dropped there included incendiary bombs), in September 1939 right after the beginning of the war the Luftwaffe caused terrible havoc on Warsaw and proceeded to do so among other in Rotterdam in May 1940, Coventry in November 1940, and London for much of late 1940. In 1944/45 German V1 and V2 rockets were fired especially on Antwerp and London. Those rockets were impossible to be fired so well aimed as to pick individual military targets and even their name "Vergeltungswaffe" (Weapon of vengeance) doesn't suggest even the remotest thought of any regard for civilians. If the destruction caused by German bombs in WW2 and the tons of bombs dropped by Germans fall far behind the degree of destruction and the tons of allied bombs I think it is safe to say that it didn't have anything to do with any greater concern for civilians (even saying that sounds cruelly ridiculous given the genocide Germans committed) but simply with the fact that Germany never bothered to built up a fleet of large long range bombers like those set up especially by the Royal Air Force and the US Air Force.
That being said, does any of this make bomb warfare any less cruel or any more justifiable? I think not. Bomb warfare against civilians is an act of extreme barbarism. In war things often get out of hand. In spite of the early bombarding of Warsaw the routinely and deliberate bombing of towns came about somewhat gradually each site feeling justified and even challenged to create more terror among the civilians of the other countries every time own civilians were killed or injured (which was at least to some degree an exception in the earliest phase of WW2).
The main idea (apart from "revenge") behind the deliberate bombing of civilians was the thought that bomb warfare would destroy the morale of the civilian population to a degree where they would revolt against the own government / regime forcing it to end the war by capitulation. However, the effects of bomb warfare against cities and civilians ultimately turned out to have a different effect. First there was the outcry of revenge and an initial increase of will to fight against those who would commit such horrors as those created by bomb warfare. Then after it became obvious that there wasn't going to be an end to the bombardments morale did decrease, but rather than developing into any spirit of resistance against the own government it put people into a very dull "keep your head down and hope to be among those who just happen to survive" kind of spirit.
The military aspects of bomb-warfare in Europe in WW2 are a matter of debate. On the one hand there are cases (like the bombardment of the oil refineries in Ploesti) which certainly did have an effect. On the other hand it is surprising that the production output of war materials in Germany was at its peak in 1944 and in the final year when most bombs fell and not least by the ruthless exploitation of forced laborers from other countries. It can be speculated about what the production would have been like if there had been no bombardments at all. But assuming that it would have been totally unaffected would be as short sighted as it would be to assume that the production would have been much higher without the bombardments. The production of Germany was not so much limited by need of factories and machinery (the target of most bombing attacks) as it was by the lack of raw materials (which is why attacks like the one on Ploesti) were usually so much more effective than the bombardment of the final factories or towns.
By far the most bombs were dropped in the final year of the war and there are cases where there can be pretty much no doubt whatsoever that some targets didn't have any military value whatsoever and would not have been a potential source for an uprising against the regime either. In the final months of the war it sometimes came down to bombarding farmhouses. The final target of a mass carpet bombing by the Royal Air Force in April 1945 was a place called "Bad Oldesloe". The very name is screaming "One horse village".
Bomb-warfare did kill hundreds of thousands and of course it did not discriminate between men, women, and children. I do not mean to play on anybodies heart strings but I do not think that the short mention of individual fates would automatically render this post unobjective. My grandma (born in 1929) told me about her best friend (who would have just reached teenagehood at the time). She was sitting in a bunker when it got a direct hit. The air pressure of the blast tore the lungs of the little girl apart. My grandma herself had an experience with strafers, having to witness the head of a farmer on a field being shot to pieces while she was crouching to an embankment hoping not to be shot herself. She was 15 at the time.
Given the expectations set in bomb warfare in books published in the 1920s and 30s and also by the high command which ordered the bombing the results fell way short of the expectations. Apart from the already mentioned loss of human live bomb-warfare caused immeasurable cultural damage. Houses predating the time of the war are relatively rare in Germany and compared to countries which have not seen as severe bomb-warfare there are very, very few medieval structures or classical historic town centers left. Up in flames went not only buildings but also uncountable unique historical documents, books, chronicles etc. WW2 created gaps in historical records which will never ever be filled again.
Mankind didn't learn from it and this more than anything is why I consider it important not to silence the topic because we feel it is uncomfortable to talk about a past which we can no longer change.
There must have been people who considered it a challenge to surpass what destruction bomb-warfare had caused in Europe (and we didn't even mention Japan yet where we tend to overlook the huge havoc caused by conventional bombardment preceding Hiroshima and Nagasaki). For bombs dropped on Korea and Vietnam (the later also involving the secret bombarding Combodia and Laos without Congress being consulted about it) during the wars named after the respective countries surpass the amount of bombs dropped on Europe in WW2.
However, same as in WW2 the expected results were not achieved. Even from the cold point of view of war economy the bomb-warfare in Vietnam was a total failure since the costs for the bombing campaign exceeded the monetary damage caused by far. The effect it had on the morale of people is probably best demonstrated by the effect the iconic photo of poor young Kim Ph?c had not on the Vietnamese but the American people.
Yet bomb-warfare against civilians continues. Sure enough there hasn't been any carpet bombing of towns in the more recent and continuing wars, but there are reports a plenty about civilians being hit by a ratio to the actual combatants that makes me wonder how anyone can buy stories about "surgical warfare", "smart bombs" and the like. I don't know if any member of the GOF ever comes into a situation in which he or she has to give an opinion about bomb warfare or the like. But in case this should happen I hope that he or she will at least remember some of the points I have mentioned.

[Nick22]

Hindsight is always 20-20. was the bombing of Dresden,necessary? militarily no, but vengence was a factor. Remember Britain had been bombed heavily during the Blitz, and was itching to return the favor. Its not something we here in 2011 should be proud of, any more than incarcerating the Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. but we should not impose our thinking on events from the past, we must view them as they were, in their times, not ours.

[oogaboo]

Interesting discussion here. Its sad that so many people suffered all these bombings from another country. We can't change the past but history tends to repeat itself.

[Mirumoto_Kenjiro]

You all do know that we're talking about war.  War will always be brutal, damaging, and people die.  And as long as there is someone who wants war, there will be war.  Kind of hard not to repeat mistakes if there is someone that either never learns from it or shuns it as something that doesn't apply to them.

You kind of have to look at each military mind behind these tactics and ask what is the purpose behind the choice.  Here are some theories I got:

The bombings on factories, supply, and production targets are the goals of defeating or reducing the enemy's capability to wage war.  This includes the attack of Pearl Harbor, the RAF airfields in the beginning of the Battle of Britain, and the Allied bombings over German-occupied territory in the start.

The bombings on civilian targets, as everyone said, is a morale and political goal, a chance to defeat an enemy's will to fight.  This includes the London bombings, and later the Allied bombings over Europe, as recommended by an American commander.  As this never worked, the only time this tactic did work is with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  From a tactician's standpoint at the time, he looks back at all the other battles with islands such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa, where the Allies faced an enemy determined to fight to the last, taking as many enemies with them, which was a fact.  Then he looks at the Japanese homeland, in which an invasion could cost millions of lives on both sides and a very long conflict.  THAT is the purpose of the nuclear weapon program.  To demonstrate a show of force to an enemy of the damage caused on their soil with minimal loss to your own.  Although thousands of lives were lost in two nuclear bombs, it may have just prevented the loss of millions in a full-scale invasion.  As for attacks in general, you'll have to bring up the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and the 9/11 attack by the terrorists, both were purely political.  In Vietnam, it worked.  9/11, I have to say, is still in question...

Today, we're working with precision bombing, since the terrorists are working so well on a political scale, posting any collateral damage for any American retaliation against prior attacks, while making word of human-bomb attacks against purely civilian victims as a military will of God.  You'd have to look at terrorist tactics:  never dress in uniform, leaving indiscriminate bombs and mines around to kill soldiers and civilians, launch attacks on civilians, and hide very close to civilian structures and populations to avoid a full-scale retaliatory strike.  This is why we try for precision strikes with special forces and guided weapons.  And even though we try, we're still not perfect, and there is still the collateral.

But back to WW2 bombings, the decision of these tactics were in the hands NOT of the nations, BUT in the hands of the commanders.  Hitler made this choice, and so did some of the Allied commanders.  I can't feel guilty for what happened because I didn't make the choice.  If I ever do become a military commander, I know which tactics worked and which ones didn't, and political goals like civilian bombings are NOT even among my considering choices.

[Mirumoto_Kenjiro]

Did I just kill the topic? :unsure:

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

The norden bombsight was not as accurate as it was made to be. That and many factories were in populated areas.

[Malte279]

One aspect that is very rarely mentioned that victims to the bomb attacks included a significant number of POWs and forced laborers. For example about two thirds of the victims of the attack on the Mˆhne Dam in May 1943 were forced laborers and the bombing of the Eder Dam the same night also resulted in the death of about 750 forced laborers from Ukraine. In both cases there had been a POW / forced laborer camp not far below the dam. I haven't seen any documents about the planing or construction of those camps, but I wouldn't be surprised if placing them there was a deliberate act meant to deter from an attack on the dams. In Hiroshima too was a POW prison.
In my hometown of Dortmund there is the "Steinwache" an old police-station near the central station which from 1933 to 1945 was used as a prison by the Gestapo in which more than 66 000 people were imprisoned, and in many cases tortured or murdered. The reason I'm bringing this up is that there is a terrible reminder there of what the bomb warfare must have been like for the prisoners. Unlike most other people the prisoners were not brought into cellars or bunkers where chances of survival would have been higher. The Steinwache was not directly hit during the bombing, but the fires around must have made the prison cells pretty much as close as we could get to hell on earth. The cells have solid metal doors and the prisoners desperate to escape the heat and the bombs drummed against the doors with their fists. The heat of the fires around had softened up the metal of the doors so much that to this day you can see the imprints of the knuckles of these prisoners in the doors which gives some idea of how terribly hot it must have been.

[Mirumoto_Kenjiro]

Having to be in the target zones of any bombing attacks had to be a nightmare for anyone, prisoners or civilians.

And for the death tolls including POWs could simply be under a case of intelligence or critical decision on the part of those making the bombing campaigns.  It may be because there was no intelligence of the slave labor, or it was deliberate to keep the Allies from attacking.  Again, the decision for the campaigns belonged to the commanders, who may or may not know of such information, and if so they'll have to consider options of either the welfare of the prisoners or destroying the enemy war machine output.

My personal experience includes my trip to Europe during high school, and we visited Mauthasen in Austria.  Prisoners there who were not killed outright were put to work in a nearby Steyr factory, making weapons exclusively for the Waffen-SS.  I'm sure I have pictures of the place.  No amount of blue sky or green grass can lift the aura of dread off of it.

[jansenov]

Not sure if this is offtopic, but I have first hand experience of bombing. As you all I know, I'm from Croatia. And Croatia was in war with Yugoslav forces and Serb separatists from 1991 to 1995.  Since Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia left Yugoslavia in 1991, the vast majority of the soldiers and nearly all of the officers in the Yugoslav army were Serbs. From 1991 to roughly 1994, the Yugoslav military had complete superiority over Croatian forces.  

My hometown is located near the Bosnian border, and we experienced bombings day and night from Serb positions over the border (today Republika Srpska is located there). Occasionally there would be air bombings, but most of the bombings were carried out by howitzers and multi-rocket launchers. When the siren went of off, my family would rush to the basement. Sometimes you could hear the howitzers firing, and you count seconds until the bombs fall on the ground. I was a kid back then, but I knew something terrible was happening outside, and I never even asked my parents to look outside, even though I was very curious as a child. The buildings that sustained the greatest damage were the church and the hospital, so I think the purpose of those bombings were to break our morale, since eastern Croatia was effectively a large cauldron, cut off from the rest of the country.  

We were surrounded by Republika Srpska (Serb-occupied part of Bosnia) in the south, Republika Srpska Krajina (Serb-occupied part of Croatia) in the west, and the Republic of Serbia to the east. The only friendly area was to the north, Republic of Hungary, one of Croatia's closest allies. Fortunately, in 1994, with all the new weapons illegaly acquisitioned Croatia started to gain superiority over Yugoslav forces, so in 1994 Croatian forces destroyed the Serb pincer that separated eastern Croatia from central Croatia. The war ended in 1995 with wiping of all Serb forces from Croatian territory and the disbanding of Republika Srpska Krajina. Arguably, that's also the time when Croatian forces comitted atrocities over the Serb population.

This is still a matter dispute between Serbia and Croatia, as well as Serb atrocities in Vukovar and Dubrovnik.

I sincerely do hope that, if not avoided alltogether, that bombing will become very precise in the future. It's a terrible thing to see half the houses in your street destroyed, believe me.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

Topic wise it isn't but it is in terms of what survivors went through it is. I also hope the same and that there will be a day when there is no war.