Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II

Mar 2011

The table listing "Conventional bombing damage to large German cities in WWII" list Arthur Harris' uses data from 1943-1945 as a source. 'Bomber' Harris data, if I'm not mistaken, must have been based on photos taken from planes during and in the immedeate aftermath of air raids (i.e. in the dark and through smoke). They are preliminary results (see article 177 in Harris's book) and they don't necessariliy including all US efforts (only for Berlin there is a footnote on US participation). The estimates we have today (possibly based on the post-war Air Force surveys and/or local officials) are in some cases much higher, in fact some of these higher numbers are mentioned in the English entries or the more detailed German ones on the cities in question. Cologne city center was 95% destroyed by the end of the war, with the rest of the city not far behind. Conventional bombing was used on the cities to drive out remaining fighters long after Harris' campaigns, so I'm not sure he took everything into consideration. I suggest we find numbers from a later source or remove the table for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansch (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos of victims

For balance, ought not photos of the British dead from bombing raids be included as well as just those of the enemy nations? Looking at the photos gives the impression that bombing had little effect in Britain. Perhaps photos of British victims are difficult to find due to wartime censorship. 92.15.0.66 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, though I don't know if any such photos exist. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Spaight did NOT blame Britain for the beginning of the Bombing Campaign

At present the article quotes J.M. Spaight as stating that Britain began the area bombing of cities during WW2. However, in his writings, Spaight said the opposite: "Yet, because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That, surely, was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia's decision, to adopt her policy of 'scorched earth'. It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kief and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol, in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity in 1942 if they had understood what we had done. We should have shouted it from the house-tops instead of keeping silence about it. It could have harmed us morally only if it were equivalent to an admission that we were the first to bomb towns. It was nothing of the sort. The German airmen were the first to do that in the present war. (They had done it long before, too—at Durango and Guernica in 1937, nay, at London in 1915-18.) It was they, not the British airmen, who created a precedent for 'war against the civilian population'" J M Spaight, Bombing Vindicated

Its clear that Spaight argued that the decision was splendid because Britain put itself in the firing line, rather than stand by and allow Germany to continue (what Spaight regards) as its own pattern of strategically bombing towns. I propose the article be changed to relfect Spaight's actual views.Led225 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also checked the source of this statement and it is, according to google books: 'The nature of history reader by Keith Jenkins, Alun Munslow Routledge, 2004 - History - 352 pages The question of what the nature of history is, is now a key issue for all students of history. It is now recognized by many that the past and history are different phenomena and that the way the past is actively historicized can be highly problematic and contested. Older metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, methodological and ethical assumptions can no longer be taken as read. In this timely collection, key pieces of writing by leading historians are reproduced and evaluated, with an explanation and critique of their character and assumptions, and how they reflect upon the nature of the history project. The authors respond to the view that the nature of history has become so disparate in assumption, approach and practice as to require an informed guide that is both self-reflexive, engaged, critical and innovative. This work seeks to aid a positive re-thinking of history today, and will be of use both to students and to their teachers.'

So not exactly a definitive treatise on bombing during the second world war. Given the error, and the fact that the quotation is from a book that doesn't deal with bombing or WW2 as its primary subject matter, I propose that it be removed. However, before going ahead with this, I'm wondering if anyone else wishes to comment.Led225 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Jenkins/Munslow. The quotation is about historiography in general, not about strategic bombing.

Spaight must not be misrepresented. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

you asked for comments, I will give you mine. In the article it now stands that: "According to James M. Spaight,...the strategic bombing war of World War II was started by the British, and:

'It was a splendid decision. When Churchill began to bomb Germany, he knew that the Germans did not want a bombing war. Their air force, unlike that of the British, was not made for heavy bombs. Churchill went on bombing, even though he knew that reprisals were unavoidable.'"

It is quite clear what he means, and it is not your interpretation. Churchill started the UK-Germany strategic bombings. Spaight is quite right when he states that it was the UK who had a heavy bomber airforce optimized for strategic bombing of cities. The German bombers, such as the Stuka, were optimised for use as a mobile artillery against military targets, i.e. a sort of early "smart bombs". They never stood a chance in an area bombing of civilian houses contest. Also, you are equating city bombing with strategic bombing. This is wrong. While it is true that Germany had bombed european (not UK) cities in the months before the "splendid" UK decision of May 11th, 1940 that Spaight boasts about, as far as i know they were all in or close to the frontline and as such dont qualify as "strategic bombing". There is no reason whatsoever to remove Spaight.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "started" in the quote you provide. Remove this pov misrepresentation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What a brilliant piece of argumentation. The source states that on May 11, 1940, Churchill ordered that Germany be bombed. This is the "splendid decision" that Spaight boasts about. Dont try to misrepresent things by talking about "my quote". If you read the rest of the article you'll se that Germany did not bomb UK civilian targets until August/September 1940. What exactly do you want to do, change "started" into ordered bombing of germany on May 11, 1940? I guess we can do that. It is the same thing, just adds more text.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've undone Volunter Mareks blanking of the sourced section. You need a lot more than that edit summary to blank a stable paragraph. Please explain why you want to remove the multiply sourced paragraph.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Somehow you must've also missed above:

"Spaight said the opposite",

"only if it were equivalent to an admission that we were the first to bomb towns. It was nothing of the sort. The German airmen were the first to do that in the present war",

"It was they, not the British airmen, who created a precedent for 'war against the civilian population'

Are you seriously going to sit there and pretend that you're not misrepresenting Spaight? The above are quotations straight from the book rather than original research interpreting Spaight's statements (again, no "started first" in the quote you provided).

Nevermind that we should probably use contemporary sources, not stuff from 1944 which are more or less primary.

Please self revert, misrepresenting sources is a serious matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

♠I'd agree with taking it out. Spaight appears to be the only one who considers it a "splendid decision", the source itself is weak (quote Spaight himself if you insist on leaving it in), & a second source for the same sentiment is unnecessary.

♠As for whether BC or GAF started it, I don't see that addressed at all by the 'graph. Did BC start city bombing in WW2? No. The Germans did at Warsaw. (It makes no damn difference if they did in 1915 or 1937, since that's not WW2.) Do you genuinely think the attacks on Warsaw didn't have a grand strategic objective? Don't be ridiculous. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Quotes from Spaights book.

In Chapter II I have given my reasons for thinking that the Germans did not want to start strategic bombing and that they would gladly have called it off when it did start; and what I have recorded in the present chapter is further evidence to support my argument.

Today we can hold our heads high. Could we have done so if we had continued the policy which we adopted in September, 1939, and maintained until May, 1940? It was a selfish policy after all, an ungenerous one, an unworthy one. We were prepared to see our weaker neighbours' cities devastated by air attack—of the tactical order—to bear their misfortunes with equanimity, to do nothing to help them in the only way in which we could help at all. (We had no great army then to oppose to the German hosts, and the mills of sea power grind very slowly.)

Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany. There was no certainty, but there was a reasonable probability, that our capital and our industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany. No doubt some readers will say that I am making too big an assumption here and that Germany would have raided London and our provincial towns in any event. Perhaps so; I can only put on record my own belief that she probably would not have done so, partly because it would not have suited her military book, partly because she was afraid of the long-term consequences. She would have called a truce if she could from the cross-raiding by British and German bombers when it did begin; she did call one, in effect, whenever she saw a ghost of a chance. It simply did not pay her, this kind of air warfare. Humanitarian considerations had nothing whatever to do with the matter.

Yet, because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That, surely, was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia's decision, to adopt her policy of 'scorched earth'.

So this is to Binksternet and the others who like to engage in Original Research. Yes Binksternet, I mean you, your blanking summary included "Misrepresenting his opinion by ignoring other possible quotes". Here you have some other possible OR quotes from his book, I highlighted them, take your pick.

He calls the other German bombings tactical, and take particular note of the last highlighting, that apparently the first poster in this section completely failed to understand. Spaight was proud of having taken the war to a new level by starting the "self sacrifising" strategic bombing offensive. However, the citizens of cities such as Coventry would perhaps not have reacted well to the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive so this decision to start bombing was not given the publicity he felt it deserved.

However, going back straight to this book from 1944 like this is obvious OR, but I guess it suits some people now and then when they think they can get away with it.

What is valid wikipedia editing and not OR is to include the material from a secondary source that refers to Spaight, and that found what Spaight wrote to be relevant. Spaight himself was of course a prominent voice in his own right: James M. Spaight, the principal Assistant Secretary of the Air Ministry and an author of several books on bombing. As to Volunteer Mareks posting here it is quite confusing, I hope it is just confused and not a deliberate strawman. And making such accusations of misrepresentation of sources is also a serious matter, but after reading the EEML archives I understand more about not letting oneself being provoked. Cheers--Stor stark7 ^Speak 05:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Spaight described it as a 'splendid decision' because, as the quotes you state show, he was of the opinion that Britain would not have been bombed had she allowed Germany to continue bombing Britain's allies and not initiated her own campaign. It doesn't state that Britain was the first to bomb cities during the war. Spaight says the opposite of that elsewhere in the book. I think this distinction should be made greater in the article if the Spaight quotation is to remain. At the moment the article does not draw the dichtomy between strategic and tactical bombing that Spaight did, and flat out states that Britain began the 'bombing war', which Spaight did not say Britain did. Also Spaight describes it as 'splendid' and 'heroic' because Germany would have continued to bomb cities and towns in Europe whilst sparing the UK. The UK put itself in the firing line instead (according to Spaight). At the moment the article portrays Spaight as some sort of callous murderer who calls the bombing of civilians "splendid and heroic", and the article should be changed to reflect his actual opinions.Led225 (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing Spaight was directly involved, doesn't his own work fail the "3d party" test? If his views are common, certainly there should be sources relying on him... Moreover, seeing the Germans had already bombed Warsaw, Spaight's evidence for British invulnerability is pretty thin IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Spaight must be quoted as saying that the Germans were first in destroying cities by bombing, with his terminology "of the tactical order". Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Trekphiler, what is needed here are secondary sources, rather than editors' idiosyncratic interpretations of primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Rorschach

I added the mention of Blackett's criticism because it's the sole example at the time, & because, without it, it appears the only view was in favor of dehousing. That's clearly not the case. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

False claim and not supported by source

About Warsaw: As a defended city in the direct front-line that refused calls to surrender it could legitimately be attacked under the Hague Convention Its attributed to Boog 2001, p. 361

Nevermind that it comes from dubious source(wrote for Junge Freiheit) and without attribution.It doesn't actually state that. The source claims that "by the last third of September the situation of Warsaw has changed;it was now a defended city". Something quite different from the claim that was based on this source. Warsaw was bombed from 1st September.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice detective work. I suspect that this false claim will have been added to a few articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

At risk of synthesis, does citing Boog for defense & the Hague Con itself for making it okay fail? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia:Competence is required!

It is clear from the way the text in the article was structured that that the sentence in question refers to the situation after the city became surrounded by ground troops that were trying to capture it (September 13). If you read the source, puplished by Oxford University Press, the only reason it mentions the third half of September is due to the fact that the book is discussing the heavy bombings that were started then (25th). Where is the allegedly false claim?

As the text stood in the article.

Preparations were made for a concentrated attack (Operation Wasserkante) by all bomber forces against targets in Warsaw.[38] However, possibly as a result of the plea from Roosevelt to avoid civilian casualties, Goering canceled the operation and prohibited the bombing of military and industrial targets within the Warsaw residential area called Praga.[39] A report made on 4 September by the French air attache in Warsaw stated clearly that so far the Germans had tried to hit only military and economic targets.[40] Warsaw was first attacked by German ground forces on 9 September and was put under siege on 13 September. As a defended city in the direct front-line that refused calls to surrender it could legitimately be attacked under the Hague Convention.

The text in the book.

The report of the French air attache in Warsaw of 4 September 1939, submitted at the Nuremberg Trial of Major War Criminals, expressedly stated that the Luftwaffe until then tried to attack only military and economic targets in the city. By the last third of September the situation of Warsaw had changed, it was now a defended city in the front line, as even the Brittish air-war historian Frankland has confirmed, as a city that, in spite of repeated calls, had refused to surrender and therefore, under the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, could legitimately be attacked. Gen. von Richthofen's earlier proposals for comprehensive bombing had been rejected from higher up. Nevertheless, the bombing of Warsaw on 25 September, carried out against military targets in preparation for the capture of the city, was marked by a great degree of inaccuracy because, with bomber formations being pulled back to protect Germany´s western frontier, the raid was largely performed by Ju-52 transport aircraft usuitabe for aimed bombing. Yet even Polish historians confirm that barely 3 percent of the total bombs were incendiaries, a mere 1/5 of the proportion of incendiaries to be later routinely carried by RAF bomber command in its raids on German cities. Finally, there was a further justification in international law for this bombing raid - the prospect of achieving an immediate military advantage, in this case the surrender of Poland.

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Another error

report made on 4 September by the French air attache in Warsaw stated clearly that so far the Germans had tried to hit only military and economic targets. This again cited to Boog page 361.

I checked this. Boog indeed does mention 4th of September-while sourcing it to IMT chapter IX page 639.

I checked the IMT chapter IX and page 639(IMT trials are open for reading:http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-IX.pdf). No mention of Warsaw. It's a discussion with Goering. The report is though mentioned by Goering's defender Otto Stahmer on page 689, however it gives the date of 14 September 1939. Tomasz Szarota gives more on the report which can be added. But for now however it seems that Boog either gave false date or it is a typo in the book with 1 missing before 4. All other sources give 14th September as date of the report, and the source Boog uses also gives 14th September.

Since this report is mentioned already, I would remove the incorrect information regarding 4th of September if nobody opposses it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research here, just so you remember. There is no reason what so ever for Boog to give a false date, and if he was trying to whitewash the Germans then that would indeed be counterproductive for him to claim the 4th instead of the 14th since Warsaw did not come under direct military siege until on the 13th. Most likely a typo, a "1" was lost. I would suggest you add an additional reference, the one to the IMT ix, page 689, and change the date to 14th.

For those who do not care to download the IMT; extracts:

... a statement by the French General Armengaud concerning the fact that the German Air Force operated in Poland in accordance with the laws of warfare and attacked military targets exclusively.

After the outbreak of war the German Air Force under its Commander-in-Chief, Goring, did not, by order of Hitler, attack any open cities in Poland; this was con- firmed by Buttler, the British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 6 September 1939, and by the French Air Attache in Warsaw on 14 September 1939 (Documents 41 and 46 of the White Book). The latter, General Armengaud, says Literally:

"I must emphasize that the German Air Force acted according to the Iaws of war; it attacked military targets only and, if civilians were often killed or wounded this happened because they were near the military targets. It is important that this should be known in France and in England, so that no reprisals will be taken where there is no cause for reprisals, and so that total aerial warfare will not be let loose by us."

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)