Originally posted by paraphi
Here we go again. All sitting in our comfie living rooms. We are worlds away from the 1930’s and none of us have any clue as to the impact of WW2 or understanding of a world engaged in total war, where every part of the national economy was directed towards a war effort in a fight for life. My two grandfathers fought in WW2 and my parents lived through it, one as an evacuee from the bombed cities.

Already in this thread we’ve had the “Hitler was a victim” and Great Britain was some sort of warmonger. Doubtlessly (because it’s a common theme in ATS) someone will start to fart on that it was the Jews that did it, etc... We have people who base their worldview on YouTube and have probably never tried to read a history book!

The fact is the allied bombing offensive in Europe and the Far East by the allies was a campaign to win a war at all costs and vise versa by the Axis. The allies did not have the benefit of GPS guided munitions.

Of course the bombing was two-way. Nazi Germany and the Italians in Europe merrily engaged in bombing civilian areas, as did the Soviets and the Japanese. Malta was the most heavily bombed places on the planet. As Bomber Harris said...

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

All credit to the sacrifice of RAF Bomber Command who suffered 55,700 killed and their USAAF brothers. Defeating facism was no joke. War today is just too clean.

Regards

killing innocent civilians is never justified

just because someone else kills women in your city does not give you an equal right to also kill women in their city

Originally posted by RizeorDie

France and Britain were in the process of isolating Germany, Their next stop was Norway, Then it would have been the Balkans, and then Italy. Until Germany starves much like WW1

So Germany went on the offensive, shock and blitzkrieg they ended the war with france in weeks keeping causalities low by avoiding trench warfare and all the death and diseases that come with it.

So you are arguing that the Blitzkrieg in the West was justified?

How do you justify the German attack into Belgium, Holland and Denmark?

Were they isolating and starving Germany?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by RizeorDie

France and Britain were in the process of isolating Germany, Their next stop was Norway, Then it would have been the Balkans, and then Italy. Until Germany starves much like WW1

So Germany went on the offensive, shock and blitzkrieg they ended the war with france in weeks keeping causalities low by avoiding trench warfare and all the death and diseases that come with it.

So you are arguing that the Blitzkrieg in the West was justified?

How do you justify the German attack into Belgium, Holland and Denmark?

Were they isolating and starving Germany?

In order to stop the British and French from taking Norway, the Germans had to intervene, and without Denmark that would have been impossible for the Germans to get to Norway. Not only that, but by controlling Denmark the Germans would control entrance into the Baltic Sea and secure their sea shore in that area. So having Denmark was a most, and any country in their right mind would have done the same thing.

The invasion of France was either through Switzerland or the Low Countries, there was no way an army could attack through the Maginot line, the french knew this

France is a dirty player, for years they have poked Germany because they thought that they were too safe behind the Maginot line, they are cowards so they built that fortified line and so they knew Germany had to attack other countries to get to them and they continued with their arrogance and esprit de revanche ways. They banned Germany from the Olympic games in the inter-war period while Germany was paying heavy war reparations. It wasnt like france was a good guy at any point

Anyway, it is important to know the french and their policy of that time before I go into explaining the reasons for the invasions of Belgium and the Netherlands.

To get to france Germany had to go through Belgium and the Netherlands, the Germans needed all the airfields and roads and communication centers and bridges and railroads they could have to launch operation fall gelb and for that operatiuon to succeed and not end in stalemate, they also had to secure the sea shores to not allow the british to land in their rear and attack them through the Netherlands. They also needed to trick the french into making them think that this was going to be a repeat of WW1, and this plan worked, the French and British went to meet the germans in Belgium only to realize that the German are invading through the ardennes forest, they were encircles and had to retreat to dunkirk.

After that victory germany offered peace to britian, it was rejected.

Originally posted by RizeorDie
So Germany went on the offensive, shock and blitzkrieg they ended the war with france in weeks keeping causalities low by avoiding trench warfare and all the death and diseases that come with it.

But in reality it was not like that, was it.

The Germans rolled through Western Europe – not just France – so in one act of belligerence Hitler could destroy all the democracies that would oppose his fascist state, whether they were at war with him or not.

Blitzkrieg may sound good, but it was not that clean and simple. The invasion of France and the Low Countries resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths including the indiscriminate bombing of cities like Rotterdam. The result was several years of the type of occupation you would not wish for your worst enemy.

Regards

Originally posted by RizeorDie
In order to stop the British and French from taking Norway, the Germans had to intervene and without Denmark that would have been impossible for the Germans to get to Norway.

So by the same logic, the British & French would have been justified invading Denmark, geography permitting, to stop the Germans taking Norway.

Originally posted by RizeorDie
Not only that, but by controlling Denmark the Germans would control entrance into the Baltic Sea and secure their sea shore in that area. So having Denmark was a most, and any country in their right mind would have done the same thing.

So German attacks of Denmark, Holland and Belgium were justified to secure the Baltic sea?

Originally posted by RizeorDie

The invasion of France was either through Switzerland or the Low Countries, there was no way an army could attack through the Maginot line, the french knew this.

France is a dirty player, for years they have poked Germany because they thought that they were too safe behind the Maginot line

France had been invaded twice by Germany in the 75 years before WWII (in 1870 and 1914). In 1939 the Germans made it a third time.

After the devastation of their cities in WWII, perhaps the Germans learned that launching aggressive wars against their neighbors wasn't entirely without consequence.

Originally posted by RizeorDie

I do not justify the killing of civilians anywhere, period.

But your thread isnt about some German pilot justifying his killing of Russian civilians, its about a british bomber justifying death of innocent civilians

had the same title been contributed to a German pilot I would stand with the Russian civilians

So you refuse to look at the larger picture and take on board that the bombing of German cities shortened the war and saved many more Russian and Polish lives than the German lives it took?

For every 1 German civilian killed by bombing, the Germans killed at least 35 Russian and Polish civilians.

Originally posted by RizeorDie
I dont understand how anyone would justify the killing of civilians and children and babies in order to save other civilians.

If someone breaks into my home and kills my family, I will not return the favor by doing the same to them, I will find those responsible and kill them, but I will NOT harm their innocent family members and children

some people here are sick minded, this is what happens when you spend too much time on the internet and conspiracy websites instead of socializing with the world outside, you lose emotions.

well said

Originally posted by ollncasino
So you refuse to look at the larger picture and take on board that the bombing of German cities shortened the war and saved many more Russian and Polish lives than the German lives it took?

you simply cannot state that as some sort of fact, you may believe this to be the case, but there is clearly no fact on this matter- even if it were the case, which we don't have as fact, I still don't think it justifies burning German babies

For every 1 German civilian killed by bombing, the Germans killed at least 35 Russian and Polish civilians.

and the Russians were adept at killing civilians as well, the Russians who we were buddies with.

Let us not pretend there is moral high ground here, there isn't-

Originally posted by RizeorDie
I dont understand how anyone would justify the killing of civilians and children and babies in order to save other civilians.

In the real world, leaders often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Especially in wartime.

It's just a pity that Germany started WWII in the first place.

14,700,000 Russian and Polish civilians and 422,000 German civilian lives could have been saved.

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

you simply cannot state that as some sort of fact, you may believe this to be the case, but there is clearly no fact on this matter- even if it were the case, which we don't have as fact, I still don't think it justifies burning German babies

Bombing Germany into submission did shorten the war. German cities were major areas of war production.

The burning of German, British, French, Polish, Russian, Dutch, Belgium, Russian and Danish babies could have been avoided if Germany had not launched an aggressive war in 1939.

As it was, Germany killed at least 35 Polish and Russian babies for every 1 German baby killed by bombing. Whatever the Germans were in WWII, they were not the innocent victims.

Interesting thread OP


My own opinion is that even though I can see the military justification for the bombings, and though neccessary for our war effort... I still cant help but think that Harris could have shown some regret for it in later years... But I guess they were warriors of a different age and different war...

Would any of us in his position chose differently?? I doubt it.. But showing at least some regret would not have harmed him either..

Originally posted by RizeorDie
They banned Germany from the Olympic games in the inter-war period while Germany was paying heavy war reparations.

Wrong, Germany was not banned, they were just not invited by the IOC. They were there in 1928 and 1932 and 1936 - in fact, the 1936 Olympics were held in Germany! Seems like you like to revise history....

After that victory germany offered peace to britian, it was rejected.

he did? Care to show valid documentation of Hitler's "peace plan"?

Once again the apologists for Hitler raise their ugly heads

After the war Hitler's Armanants Minister Albert Speer stated If the Allies had done more bombing raids like Dresden and Hamburg. The war would have ended sooner in 1944.