Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
As Phylo mentioned earlier, a clear case can be made with Coventry. Did that bombing come anywhere near breaking the English will to resist? Of course not, it strengthened it! So, why did the RAF think that terror bombing of German civilians would have any different effect?Rajin Cajun wrote:To be honest I see the opposite in doing this most likely this would not diminish a populations will to resist but rather increase it to the point of Zealots being made of regular citizens. No one in their right mind is going to surrender to an enemy that slaughters the civilians at whim.
The diffference is that Goering was a war criminal, Harris was not.Helmut Von Moltke wrote:Phylo, just remember it is basically - mass murder. If I remember correctly, some time ago there was as statue of "Bomber Harris" in London, but it met with protests. Is it still there? How bad it was to have it there. What about a statue of Goering? Anyone?
*tongue in check*
Kevin you are confusing the issues at hand a bit. Hitler was a war criminal, he gave orders that were in contradiction of the Hague as well as the Geneva convention. But Harris did not do so. Perhaps he was conducting a warfare that we regard as immoral or maybe it is to be regarded as similar to the charges of crimes against humanity. But the action was never in violation of the laws of war as laid down at the time.Helmut Von Moltke wrote:thanks Paul. DXTR, although I stick by my opinion it was mass murder, I agree that it is neccesary to look at the Allied high command's reason for this. And although technically not a war criminal, Harris unofficially is, regarded by many. Just as Hitler was not technically one, since he wasn't judged at Nuremburg, but to all of us and to the whole world it is. Some intresting points everyone, though.
Bombing did not accelerated that proces. Bombardments much slower that rising production. And of course that was "cannon instead butter". If Germany was able to do strategic bombing, they for sure would use that possibility. Without strategic bombers they couldn't do that. So in 1940 British arms production also went up.Paulus II wrote: Arms production in Germany went up after the bombing started.
I see absolutely no problem with bombing targets related to the war industry, even though they are staffed by civilians. Destroy the tank plants, aircraft production lines, and bullet factories, and the war is directly affected.Paulus II wrote:And, as you say, "mechanised war in fact recognised whole enemy state as a military target. People who work in factories, farms, offices or hospitals (also women, old people) are de facto supporting warmachine" is also true but that does not make it morally right! And that makes civilians an illegitimate target in my personal opinion.
As far as I know the statue is still there, and rightly so as far as I'm concerned. Removing it would have been political correctness gone mad! Harris was a popular figure in his day, and should not be judged by the standards of today. I bear no ill will against Goering or the Luftwaffe for bombing my home town, hitting mostly civilians, although legitimate military production facilities were also present, and I would argue that they were simply doing their job to wear down the enemy industry and population by any means necessary. Harris was no different. It was a brutal time, and his methods were accepted then as the best way to get the job done, whether they were subsequently proved right or not.Helmut Von Moltke wrote:Phylo, just remember it is basically - mass murder. If I remember correctly, some time ago there was as statue of "Bomber Harris" in London, but it met with protests. Is it still there? How bad it was to have it there. What about a statue of Goering? Anyone?
*tongue in check*