Germans call Churchill a war criminal
By Kate Connolly in Berlin (Filed: 19/11/2002)
Winston Churchill was effectively a war criminal who sanctioned the extermination of Germany's civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities, an article in the country's biggest-circulation newspaper claimed yesterday.
In an unprecedented attack on Allied conduct during the Second World War, the tabloid Bild has called for recognition to be given to the suffering inflicted on the German population during the strategic air campaign of 1940-45.
The newspaper's campaign, provoked by a new German history of the bomber offensive, breaks six decades of virtual silence on the subject, and is being seen as the latest manifestation of a belief among Germans that they too were victims of the war - albeit a war started by their country.
The newspaper is serialising Der Brand (The Fire: Germany Under Bombardment 1940-45) by the historian Jorg Friedrich, which claims to be the most authoritative account of the bombing campaign so far.
Mr Friedrich claims the British government set out at the start of the Second World War to destroy as many German cities and kill as many of their inhabitants as possible. Civilian deaths were not collateral damage, he says, but rather the object of the exercise. He argues that Churchill had favoured a strategy of attacking the civilian population centres from the air some 20 years before Hitler ordered such raids.
Britain's war leader is quoted during the First World War as saying: "Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population."
Friedrich goes on to quote Churchill defending the morality of bombing: "Now everyone's at it. It's simply a question of fashion - similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."
Der Brand is far removed from the dry style of most German histories, and is filled with emotive accounts of the horrors of bombing, but carries few references to the man who brought retribution on Germany, Adolf Hitler.
Friedrich argues that the Allied policy of seeking to break German morale through bombing proved mistaken, the attacks merely serving to weld together the German population.
The debate is certain to anger those in Britain who see the strategic air campaign as a necessary evil.
The British, led by Sir Arthur Harris, C-in-C Bomber Command, were the leading proponents of "night area bombing", involving the systematic destruction of German industrial capacity and housing. The policy resulted in the laying to waste of city after city, including Hamburg, Cologne and Dresden, and the deaths of some 635,000 Germans.
The policy was to some extent forced on the RAF by the failure of daylight operations against pinpoint targets early in the war. It also reflected the fact that, for much of the conflict, bombing was the only method by which Britain could attack Germany.
German raids on Britain in the Blitz of 1940-41 were seen to have freed the British from the obligation not to attack civilian centres.
The serialisation of the book will furnish the far-Right in Germany with arguments to back its revisionist claims. It is also likely to overshadow recent reconciliation attempts between Britain and Germany over the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 in which tens of thousands died.
In a symbolic sign of friendship, British businesses have paid into a fund to reconstruct the Frauenkirche or Church of Our Lady which was destroyed in the raid and is set to be reopened in 2006.
Yesterday Antony Beevor, the British historian and author of the bestselling Berlin: The Downfall, 1945, criticised the German claim that Britain's war of attrition was unnecessarily brutal. "The trouble is this argument is removed from the context that they were the ones who invented terror bombing," he said, referring to German attacks on Coventry, Rotterdam and Warsaw.
"They literally obliterated whole cities and that certainly preceded what the British did," he said. "What we did was more terrifying and appalling, but it was a natural progression in this war.
"One can certainly debate the whole morality of bombing, but for Germans to say Churchill was a war criminal is pushing it a bit," he said.
Friedrich, 58, said his two years of research prompted him to change his views radically on the Allied bombing.
"Previously it appeared to me to be a just answer to the crimes of the Third Reich, but I've since changed my mind," he said. "Until the Second World War there was a common consensus that the massacre of civilian populations was illegal."
For the past year Germans on both the Left and Right have been locked in a new and intense debate about the war and their role as its victims as well as perpetrators. The debate was sparked by Gunther Grass, the Nobel prize winner, in a novel fictionalising the wartime account of a passenger ship torpedoed by the Soviet navy killing thousands of Germans on board.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 1:43 AM
You should have seen the comments when our former defence minister tried to rename one of our barracks into "Winston Churchill" barracks...
Anyway the term "war criminal" itself as was defined at Nuremburg is totally ridiculous.
"The trouble is this argument is removed from the context that they were the ones who invented terror bombing," he said, referring to German attacks on Coventry, Rotterdam and Warsaw."
Crap, Warsaw and Roterdam are definately not terror bombings, Coventry is arguable.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 4:16 AM
At the start of the war to the middle of the war, the bombings can be justified. At the end of the war, the carpet bombings and indiscriminate killing of german civilians were certainly not neccesary. i think this article can be justified. Time for the german to speak up.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 10:14 AM
German planes purposefully bombed French civilians during the battle of France to slow the allied retreat down and to create confusion. They also bombed civilians during the spanish civil war.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 10:35 AM
Has this anything to do with Churchill ?
It is clear to all persons that Nazi Germany carried out War crimes the question is if others did too. My clear answer is yes. And i would say "Terror Bombardments" to break the will of the People by pure death, burned bodies and pure destruction fits exactly for that. (same goes for the V1 and V2 attacks on British cities) We dont talk about a few hudred people but hundreds of thousands of killed Civilians.
---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 12:57 PM
Kirzgulu schalt mal die Brine an und laber nicht sonen Scheiss diese Terrorbombardierungen von Innenstädten waren überhaupt nicht richtig ! Hatten keinen Militärischen Nutzen !
---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !
2. Ich gebe mal als Beispiel Dresden vor:
Die häufig kritisierte Bombardierung Dresdens ist bei richtiger und unpopulistischer Betrachtung 100% vertretbar da dort ~30.000 zurückgezogene Landser und weitere militärische Einheiten waren. Nur pseudo-Wissenschaftler wie Friedrichs der noch nie eine Universität von innen gesehen hat, geschweige denn von irgendeiner seriösen Person auf diesem Felde ernstgenommen wird, behaupten solch einen Unsinn und leider stürzt sich die Bevölkerung auf solch leicht verdauliche "Geschichtshäppchen".
Sein ganzes Buch "Bombenterror" (oder wie sein Schundheft auch heißen mag)
wurde von so vielen "richtigen" Historikern zerrissen das man für die Zusammensetzung der Seiten die Gauck-Behörde einschalten müsste.
Ps Wer Wind sät, erntet Sturm...
Sehitler Ölmez, Vatan Bölünmez!
This message has been edited by Kiziroglu on Apr 18, 2004 1:27 PM
Its like you get two kids, one called Adam, one called William.
One day Adam throws a stone through one of the windows of Williams house,the next day William throws a larger rock back.Adam starts crying and runs to tell his parents.Typical.
You could argue that every target hit by the Luftwaffe and RAF Bomber Command was legitmate, even Dresden and Coventry.Every raid was made at a price in Airmen and Aircraft, it just wasnt a case of lets send the bombers over and kill some people.
To think that the likes of Winston Churchill or Bomber Harris might get compared to the utterly evil creatures like Mengele that Nazi Germany produced is sickening.
To quote a Great man;
"They have sown the wind, the shall reap the whirlwind"
PM Winston Churchill upon learning of the destruction of Coventry.
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 3:13 PM
"one german "historian" like Friedrichs the a**hole which even have not study on a university. it is just revanchism and some right germans like it."
No, you are wrong. Friedrich succeeded in making this discussion "Salonfähig" it has nothing do with right wing crap. That the neo-nazis are sympathetic to him is logical, but he can't do anything about it, can't he? Friedrichs book isn't even centered around research it tells the story of the bombing and shows the morally questionable logic behind it. You should be very careful with dismissing it out of hand.
"Churchill did the right and to call him a a "war-criminal" is just crap."
No, there are quite some arguments you could make against him. Churchill was a very ruthless figure, he was prepared to shed blood, though I suppose it was necessary in his time. Whether he is a war criminal or not is moot for me anyways. I will say the following: Churchill didn't commit crimes (if they were crimes) out of pleasure or out of calculation (like Hitler or Stalin) but because he felt it was necessary. As such I wouldn't put him in the same league, but he isn't blameless either.
"@ reaver if you bomb a whole city down that is the same like coventry."
No, it isn't. It was presented that these cases were cases of Moral/Terrorbombing, but that definately isn't true. Rotterdam was an accident! even German troops were bombed. Warsaw was a battlefield and soldiers were present. That is quite a contrast to the Moral bombing strategy of Harris and the RAF. It had an immediate military goal and the prime target weren't civilians. Coventry as I said might be on the same level.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 3:24 PM
"You could argue that every target hit by the Luftwaffe and RAF Bomber Command was legitmate, even Dresden and Coventry.Every raid was made at a price in Airmen and Aircraft, it just wasnt a case of lets send the bombers over and kill some people."
It was precisely that. Or more nicely put "dehousing" as Harris said. The goal was to kill civilians so that a) the moral drops and b) the industry suffers. Both goals weren't achieved.
"To think that the likes of Winston Churchill or Bomber Harris might get compared to the utterly evil creatures like Mengele that Nazi Germany produced is sickening."
Not Mengele, but for example the many of the German generals charged with the ridiculos charge of "Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War " or "Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace".
"To quote a Great man;
"They have sown the wind, the shall reap the whirlwind"
PM Winston Churchill upon learning of the destruction of Coventry."
To quote him again:
"(9) Winston Churchill, memorandum to Air Marshall Arthur Harris (28th March 1945)
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction. "
So he admitted himself that it was Terrorbombing, oops...
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 4:35 PM
strange how Germans now and then can be distinguished by the term "Nazi" and 'Hitler' in first person and even now some Englishmen sympathise this Historian without questioning his affiliaitions with and sharing nationalist sentiment
No, you are wrong. Friedrich succeeded in making this discussion "Salonfähig" it has nothing do with right wing crap. That the neo-nazis are sympathetic to him is logical, but he can't do anything about it, can't he? Friedrichs book isn't even centered around research it tells the story of the bombing and shows the morally questionable logic behind it. You should be very careful with dismissing it out of hand.
why it bacame so popular although there IS NO acception throught real historians and the most facts are shown wrong ??? do you want a answer ?
i think it is revanchism. the germans get a feeling like "uh we were such a long time delinquent now we want to play victims"... but there is a difference between playing a vitcim and to be really one. and the author often said things that just are laughable for people who are common with the material but the "lower" classes read the book which is only crap and believes it.
but because he felt it was necessary. he just didn't feel it... they WERE necessary to overthrough and destroy the greastest evil empire that the world has seen.
He promised "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" nothing more or less.
Goebbels: Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt noch vorstellen können???
Goebbels: I ask you: Do you want the total war? Want it, if necessarily, more totally and more radically, than we can at all still presenting him to us today???
And the people in the stadium and at the radios answered "YES !!! YES !!! Instruct we follow !!!"
and Churchill gave those the right answer who wanted the "TOTAL WAR" !
Warsaw was a battlefield and soldiers were present. with this argument you can legitime all the rides of the allies.
Btw. do you know why there were sirens at the STUKAS ??? because when they bombed warsaw and other cities the pilots saw how the civilians run and get in panic when they hear that sound. that to the point that nazi-germany did no terrorbombing.
the whole attack at the London City is a example for moral-bombing. the allies just answered... and its fate that they had more planes and more bombs.
"I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction."
So he admitted himself that it was Terrorbombing, oops...
It seems that you are wrong because in these days (look at the date you posted) many germans troops were in the cities/urban areas because they were locked etc.
and there was the point that the bomber in that days hadn't the accuracy (because of technique, wheater etc) like today so that collateral damage was high.
And even if bombing which satisfy next to the destroying the targets broke the moral it was legitime because the other side started it, wanted it and deserved it.
Sehitler Ölmez, Vatan Bölünmez!
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 6:10 PM
"why it bacame so popular although there IS NO acception throught real historians and the most facts are shown wrong ???"
Like for example?
" i think it is revanchism. the germans get a feeling like "uh we were such a long time delinquent now we want to play victims"... but there is a difference between playing a vitcim and to be really one."
That is a problem of your viewpoint I must say. There are convincing arguments that many, many Germans were indeed victims, despite the fact that Nazi Germany was responsible for the war etc.
And the agrument they started it is invalid. Do you think the ordinary civilian had anything to say in military plans? No. So the German civilians were indeed victims.
" and the author often said things that just are laughable for people who are common with the material but the "lower" classes read the book which is only crap and believes it. "
Examples please.
" he just didn't feel it... they WERE necessary to overthrough and destroy the greastest evil empire that the world has seen."
Oh come on, as early as 1943 they realised that strategic bombing wouldn't achieve it's object. When they swithced to tactical bombing they won the war in a short time.
"He promised "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" nothing more or less."
Churchill like any politician says much, but he is not without failure, far from it.
"Goebbels: Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt noch vorstellen können???
Goebbels: I ask you: Do you want the total war? Want it, if necessarily, more totally and more radically, than we can at all still presenting him to us today???
And the people in the stadium and at the radios answered "YES !!! YES !!! Instruct we follow !!!"
and Churchill gave those the right answer who wanted the "TOTAL WAR" !"
You do know when this speech was, don't you? The strategic bombing had started already.
" with this argument you can legitime all the rides of the allies."
No, Warsaw was actively defended and situated close to the front. The strikes helped the ground troops directly, that you cannot say about f.e. Dresden.
"Btw. do you know why there were sirens at the STUKAS ??? because when they bombed warsaw and other cities the pilots saw how the civilians run and get in panic when they hear that sound. that to the point that nazi-germany did no terrorbombing. "
Oh, evil monsters we were, using sirens to intimidate the enemy...do you really believe the Stukasirene was installed for civilians? No, it was for enemy soldiers and did a good job during the war.
"the whole attack at the London City is a example for moral-bombing. the allies just answered... and its fate that they had more planes and more bombs."
You do know that the first city raid ON PURPOSE was done by the British against Berlin?
"It seems that you are wrong because in these days (look at the date you posted) many germans troops were in the cities/urban areas because they were locked etc.
and there was the point that the bomber in that days hadn't the accuracy (because of technique, wheater etc) like today so that collateral damage was high."
They had the accuracy as the USAAF demonstrated. The RAF did it on purpose, it was their strategy. You can look it up. They planned to cause firestorms it is a fact that they targeted civilians on purpose.
"And even if bombing which satisfy next to the destroying the targets broke the moral it was legitime because the other side started it, wanted it and deserved it."
You do know when this speech was, don't you? The strategic bombing had started already. Yes in Coverntry, London etc.
Oh, evil monsters we were, using sirens to intimidate the enemy...do you really believe the Stukasirene was installed for civilians? No, it was for enemy soldiers and did a good job during the war.
sry the testpilots rocognized that it was usefull (mainly against civilians) and so they built it in. hmm and the sound of the sirens some other things followed... it think we call them bombs or so...
You do know that the first city raid ON PURPOSE was done by the British against Berlin? no it was AFTER coverntry. Chruchill gave the order after he visited coverntry.
They had the accuracy as the USAAF demonstrated. no. that is one reason why the AF had to use such a great number of planes even for i.e. only one industrial complex.
Volker Ullrich beanstandet in der «Zeit» die sprachliche Fahrlässigkeit des Autors, Keller als «Krematorien» und Bombenopfer als «Ausgerottete» zu bezeichnen, wodurch der alliierte Luftkrieg in die Nähe des Holocaust gerückt werde, und Willi Winkler, Hausautor der «Süddeutschen Zeitung», sieht sich einem geschichtspolitischen Rollback gegenüber: Friedrichs Perspektive entstamme «dem Aufrechnungsbedürfnis der ersten Nachkriegszeit», als die Deutschen vielfach ihr Leid beklagt, die Ermordung der Juden aber nach Kräften beschwiegen hätten.
Der berüchtigte britische Pilot Arthur Harris hatte bereits 1924 festgestellt, daß Städtebombardements allein strategische Ziele verfolgen, keine moralischen wie Vergeltung.
>>So he admitted himself that it was Terrorbombing, oops...<<
But you've you already said this;
~~Churchill didn't commit crimes (if they were crimes) out of pleasure or out of calculation (like Hitler or Stalin) but because he felt it was necessary.~~
If you accept he had no choice and that it was necessary then you dont you think that calling him a "War Criminal" is unfair?
Britain was fighting for survival and Germany wanted a war that had no limits.Its very easy to look back and start calling people war criminals when you have no idea what they were facing, Churchill couldnt see the future and neither could Harris.
If we were talking about British troops systematically razing German villages and executing Germans then i could understand but we arent, are we?
I remember reading about an incident where a German Fighter had shot down a Lancaster during a nightraid.The following morning the German pilot receieved news that the reckage of the Lanc and the bodies of its crew had been found and authorities were waiting for him to arrive.After his arrival, a civilian kicked one of the bodies and muttered "British pig" The pilot, seething, hit the civilian in the face.
Now compare that to the way American and British troops reacted to the German Guards at the Concentration Camps.
Theres a big difference.
>>No, Warsaw was actively defended and situated close to the front. The strikes helped the ground troops directly, that you cannot say about f.e. Dresden.<<
One of the reasons Dresden was targeted was because it was being used as a Hub that thousands of German troops were passing through to get to the Eastern Front.This is why more German soldiers were killed at Dresden than all of Bomber Commands other raids combined.
>>They had the accuracy as the USAAF demonstrated. The RAF did it on purpose<<
a,Bomber Command bombed at Night.
b,None of the RAF Heavy Bombers used the much more accurate Norden Bombsite improved the accuracy of American raids.
>>You do know that the first city raid ON PURPOSE was done by the British against Berlin<<
Dont forget that during the first British raids on Germany the Bombers were armed with LEAFLETS.Surely not the best way to start our campaign of destroying the German race from the air?
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 18 2004, 11:35 PM
The British started the carpet-bombing with the attack of 18 Whitley-Bombers on Mönchengladbach (10th/11th May 1940).
The first attack of German planes on targets in Britain began on the 20th of June 1940. Six weeks later and at that time only on military targets.
The first attack on civil targets (London)was launched on the 7th of September 1940. 4 months and 8 carpet-bombings raids to Berlin later.
The British planned for largescale carpet bombing from the early 30s. Could this be the reason, that the Germans didnt have any long-range bomber as the British had ?
As to Warsaw - it was a fortress city with about 100.000 soldiers in it. Before the bombing the city was required to surrender, the civilians were permitted to leave the city. The bombing with artillery first and then with tactical bombers was therefore NOT against international law, especially not against the Hague Land Warfare Convention.
As to Rotterdam - On the 14th of May, there was fighting going on in the streets of Rotterdam. The German soldiers had no artillery at hand, so they called for support with bombers. Rotterdam was definitely a defended city at that time. According to article 26 of the HLWC the Germans called for surrender of the city. The ultimatum of 3 hours to clear the city of enemy troops seems short but wasn't even necessary according to international law.
So on the 14th of May 2 squadrons (each 40 planes) took off with definite targets in the northwest of the bridges over the Maas. The pilots had alternative targets for the case that the city would surrender in time. The right squadron hit their targets accurately but because of fire in the oil depots heavy damage was done and unfortunately a lot of civilians where killed and wounded. The other squadron recognized the light signals of the infantry, that Rotterdam had surrendered in the meantime and they attacked the alternative targets, away from Rotterdam.
By the way, the German pilots had the order to fly their attack on Rotterdam in an altitude of 750m above the ground to be sure to hit the accurate targets. I don't think that the British attacked Berlin in the following months with the same orders. To kill women and children needs no accurate bombing.
So the attack on Rotterdam was a tactical mission with the intention to spare civilians and non-military buildings as good as possible and therefore in accord with the HLWC. (read also A.J.P. Taylor: English History 1914-1945, s. 453)
As to Guernica/Spain - The target for the German and Italian bombers was the bridge over the Rio Oca. Because of the inadequate bombing the bridge wasn't hit but half of the city was destroyed and about 200 civilians were killed. The attack altitude of the main body of planes (18 Ju52) was between 1500 and 3000m above ground.
The point is, the attack of the city wasn't intended, whereas the attacks of the British in the summer of 1940 and their strategy of the carpet bombing intended destroying cities and their citizens regardless of any military aspect.
And besides all this, if you really want to play the "whodunnit first" game, go back to Iraq around 1920. There was a rebellion going on in Iraq, and colonial secretary Churchill (you guessed it) had to find a way out because the rebellion was costing way too much to quell. He came up with the perfect tool: terror bombing of civilian populations with chemical weapons. To quote him: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 19 2004, 2:45 AM
"Britain was engaged in total war.
A fight for survival that it was ill equipped to fight.
Churchill, and his commanders did whatever they felt was
nessecary to survive."
That's why Isaid at the start of the war it can be justified. But at the end of the war, the germans were caught between the russian hammer and western anvil. They were totally out, there were no further need for such large scale killing of civilians. The NAZI deserved fully their fate but many civilians were just normal people, never wanting war.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 19 2004, 4:23 AM
WE SHALL STARVE GERMANY.
WE SHALL DESTROY ITS CITIES.WE SHALL BURN ITS CROPS & AND ITS FORESTS.
Winston Churchill in a letter to his friend, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud on 05-16-40,
four months before the Blitz began.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 19 2004, 1:48 PM
Thanks for the support guys, particularly Krigermis, I am very busy today and will write a detailed reply tomorrow probably.
The main distinction I see is that the British had a strategy that called for civilian deaths and destruction (blockbusters, firestorm tactics, long range bombers), while the Germans didn't have it and so were inadequately equipped for that. So the German "Terrorbombings" were either simply unfortunate accidents like Rotterdam, infantry support or made out of vengeance.
Btw. the only air generals tried for warcrimes in WWII were two German generals who bombed Belgrade after it was declared an open city.
As to Guernica/Spain - The target for the German and Italian bombers was the bridge over the Rio Oca. Because of the inadequate bombing the bridge wasn't hit but half of the city was destroyed and about 200 civilians were killed. The attack altitude of the main body of planes (18 Ju52) was between 1500 and 3000m above ground.
(i remember that you speak german @ henrik)
Augenzeuge Juan Guezureya berichtete über den Einsatz der Tiefflieger He 51: "In einer Höhe von etwa 30 Meter flogen die beiden Maschinen hin und her wie fliegende Schäferhunde, die eine Menschenherde zum Schlachten zusammentreiben."(17) Der verantwortliche Stabschef der Legion Condor, Wolfram von Richthofen, faßte seine Eindrücke später in einer Tagebuchnotiz zusammen: "Die 250er warfen eine Anzahl Häuser um und zerstörten die Wasserleitung. Die Brandbomben hatten nun Zeit, sich zu entfalten und zu wirken. Die Bauart der Häuser: Ziegeldächer, Holzgalerie und Holzfachwerkhäuser, führte zur völligen Vernichtung. (..) Bombenlöcher auf Straßen noch zu sehen, einfach toll."(18) Noch am Abend des 26. April 1937, als absehbar wurde, daß die Folgen des Angriffes erheblich waren, erhielten die deutschen Flugzeugbesatzungen einen "Maulkorb" verpasst, wie der beteiligte Staffelführer, von Beust, berichtete.(19)
Da unbekannt ist, wieviele Menschen (Einwohner, Pendler, Flüchtlinge) sich am Tag des Angriffs in Guernica aufhielten, konnte nicht exakt geklärt werden, wieviele Tote und Verwundete es bei der Bombardierung gegeben hat. Die Agentur United Press verbreitete in einer ersten Meldung, es habe über 100 Opfer gegeben.(20) Nach Angaben der Jungen Freiheit, einem rechtsradikalen Blatt, sprach ein amtlicher Polizeibericht von 266 getöteten Zivilisten und mehreren Hundert Verletzten. Wahrscheinlich sind rund 300 Personen verbrannt, zerfetzt oder erschossen worden.(21) Angaben, es habe über 1654 Tote und 889 Verletzte gegeben,(22) gelten heute als übertrieben. Die höchsten Schätzungen sprechen von 2000 Todesopfern.(23) Von den rund 400 Häusern waren 71% völlig zerstört, 7% schwer beschädigt und 21% leicht beschädigt. Der gesamte Ortskern der 1000 Jahre alten Stadt zwischen den Straßen San Juan, Adolfo Urioste und Don Tello wurde vernichtet.(24) Drei Tage nach dem Luftangriff besetzten faschistische Truppen die Stadt.
Guernica gilt als das erste zivile Flächenziel, das durch einen Luftangriff völlig zerstört wurde.(25) George Lowther Steer, Korrespondent der britischen Tageszeitung Times, berichtete: "Die ganze Stadt wurde systematisch vernichtet. Die Taktik der Angreifer war ganz klar: zuerst schwere Bomben und Handgranaten, um die Bevölkerung zu sinnlosen Fluchtversuchen zu veranlassen, dann Maschinengewehrfeuer, um sie in unterirdische Verstecke zu treiben und dann schließlich Zerstörung dieser Unterstände mit schweren Feuerbomben."(26) Da die zwölf provisorischen Luftschutzkeller wegen der Erstickungsgefahr nur bedingt brauchbar waren, flüchteten hunderte Einwohner zur Höhle von Santimamine, um sich vor den Gefahren der "modernen Kriegführung" in Sicherheit zu bringen. Die Höhle hatte schon den Steinzeitmenschen Schutz geboten, wie bekannte Höhlenmalereien bekunden.
To quote him: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
sry but the quote from Churchill is (SADLY) quite normal for people of that age. blacks and other non-white/europeans don't count much in their eyes.
Theorien zur Luftkriegsführung
In den 1920er Jahren lebten Theorien zur Luftkriegsführung auf. Nicht zuletzt auch das in mehreren Sprachen übersetzte Buch des italienischen Generals Guillo Douhet, der bereits 1915 einen Angriff von 500 Maschinen auf Wien vorgeschlagen hatte und in seinem Buch ein militärstrategische Szenario entwarf, erregte die interessierten Fachkreise. Europa war in den 1920er Jahren zwar politisch angespannt, nicht aber von einem akuten militärischen Konflikt bedroht. Mit der Machtübernahme durch die Nationalsozialisten in Deutschland änderte sich jedoch ab 1933 die aussenpolitische Situation auf dem Kontinent. Unmittelbar nach ihrer Machtübernahme forcierten die Nationalsozialisiten die bereits seit den 1920er Jahren im Deutschen Reich existierende "Luftschutzbewegung" und instrumentalisierte sie durch die Gründung des Reichsluftschutzbundes.
The first attack of German planes on targets in Britain began on the 20th of June 1940. Six weeks later and at that time only on military targets.
The first attack on civil targets (London)was launched on the 7th of September 1940. 4 months and 8 carpet-bombings raids to Berlin later.
At 04:43 I./KG76 bombs the city of Wielun. According to post war sources no enemy positions, installations or industry was located in Wielun. During the attack 1200 civilians were killed including patients from a local jewish hospital. About 70% of the cities buildings were destroyed during the attack.
St.G.77 attacks enemy positions at Lublinitz and Wielun.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 19 2004, 6:56 PM
Hi Kiziroglu
Sorry, but I prefer conducting this in English. Hope you dont mind.
As to Guernica/Spain - The target for the German and Italian bombers was the bridge over the Rio Oca. Because of the inadequate bombing the bridge wasn't hit but half of the city was destroyed and about 200 civilians were killed. The attack altitude of the main body of planes (18 Ju52) was between 1500 and 3000m above ground.
(i remember that you speak german @ henrik)
>Augenzeuge Juan Guezureya berichtete über den Einsatz der Tiefflieger He
>51:
Those are fighters. The damage was done by converted passenger planes (Ju52) from between 1500 and 3000 meters. Not the ideal plane if you want to hit on spot, but the only thing the Germans got.
Richthofens (the Red Barons nephew, I think?) account is a somewhat over-enthusiastic reporting of the facts. As to the "Maulkorb", I can picture that. Even the nazis were pretty sensistive to bad publicity.
>Guernica gilt als das erste zivile Flächenziel, das durch einen Luftangriff
>völlig zerstört wurde.
That would be true. Not by design, though.
>Nicht zuletzt auch das in mehreren Sprachen übersetzte Buch des
>italienischen Generals Guillo Douhet, der bereits 1915 einen Angriff von
>500 Maschinen auf Wien vorgeschlagen hatte
It nearly happened. The Entente planned for a French/British bombing effort with poison gas on Berlin for 1919.
>>The British started the carpet-bombing with the attack of 18 Whitley-
>>Bombers on Mönchengladbach (10th/11th May 1940).
>that were normal attacks against industrial and logistic complexes.
....or so the British claim. Indeed, up until May 1940 the British were rather squeamish about bombing - there is a famous quote by Chamberlain that you just cant go around destroying other peoples real estate - but with Churchill as prime minister from May 10th (odd, isnt it?), that changed drastically.
>At 04:43 I./KG76 bombs the city of Wielun. According to post war sources no
>enemy positions, installations or industry was located in Wielun. During
>the attack 1200 civilians were killed including patients from a local
>jewish hospital. About 70% of the cities buildings were destroyed during
>the attack.
The important information being "post-war sources". We know this from post-war sources. Did the Germans have post-war source pre-war? Ill show you in a second they didnt.
>St.G.77 attacks enemy positions at Lublinitz and Wielun.
>I./St.G.76 bombs hardened positions at Wielun.
This is how your quote ends. Note "enemy positions" and "hardened positions".
Now, let me post what comes after where you cut off your quote:
>Midday the first air reconaissance reports arrive in the HQ. Enemy cavalry
>formation at Wielun on the left flank of XVI.A.K.
.....
>12.50 30 Ju-87B start at Nieder-Ellguth to attack the enemy troop-
>transports. First attack on the cavalry column at Wielun. The Stukas
>formate again and attack a second time. The Stabskette sees a house on the
>north part of Wielun that is obviously used as a HQ and attacks.
>The I./St.G.77 joins the attack. As new troop movements are reported at
>Wielun I./K.G.77 receives order to attack them
So, the city of Wielun does not only have "hardened" and "enemy positions", but also Polish cavalry and an enemy HQ.
Until someone shows me the "post-war sources" to be anything but communist propaganda (and Im saying this as a historian, not as an American rightwinger) Im sorry, but Im going to have to dismiss it.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 20 2004, 1:12 AM
My only problem here are the pseudo-moralists. More specifically; that Germans are not allowed their justice, but the rest of the world is.
These individuals are by no means interested in what is right for the sake of righteousness. Do you know what morality means to them? A means to justify their lust for retribution, for revenge, which in their own terms should be considered as immoral, or Evil.
A. J. P. Taylor wrote his book Origins of the Second World War in 1961
. argued war not unique
. not caused by rival ideologies of fascism and communism and liberalism
. nor "good" great ideals vs. "bad" evil Hitler
. nor any blueprint for world conquest by Hitler
rather, it was blunders, opportunism, traditional balance of power
. "human blunders shape history more than human wickedness"
. Hitler was a "traditional European statesman" seeking to restore Germany
. he "simply leaned on the door hoping to gain entrance and the whole house fell in"
. Hitler's anti-Semitism not unique - took advantage of mood throughout Europe
Germany was the dynamic element in European politics since 1870s
. growing, expanding since Bismarck
. Article 231 was correct to blame Germany for WWI
. Hitler's revanchism had much support in Germany
Hitler & Mussolini responded to actions of others - no one in control, no plot
. Poland from ILN 1939/05/06
. France and England pursued own national interests
. Benes in Czech lured Sudeten Germans, had "canker in her heart"
. Poland weak, corrupt, elitist - an artificial creation of the Big 4
. U.S. totally isolationistic - abrogated responsibility of Article 10
. Stalin sought security from invasion - alliance with France
Taylor thesis is narrow and deterministic
. 2nd war inevitably caused by 1st war
. crisis of 1939 was simply the "war for Danzig" to East Prussia
. German nationalism was the driving force - "Anschluss"
Taylor neglected variety of causes
. economic, ideological, multinational
. harsh reparations of Articles 232-235, Great Depression, trade imbalance
. real threat of spread of communism east and west
. multinational failure to make League of Nations work
Alan John Percivale Taylor was born March 25, 1906, Birkdale, Lancashire, and died Sept. 7, 1990, in London. He is regarded as one of the most important British historians of the 20th century.
"Taylor attended Oriel College, Oxford, graduating with first-class honours in 1927. In 1931 he began writing reviews and essays for the Manchester Guardian (later The Guardian). He continued his studies in history, and in 1934 his first book, The Italian Problem in European Diplomacy 1847-1849, was published. A second book on diplomacy, Germany's First Bid for Colonies 1884-1885: A Move in Bismarck's European Policy, appeared in 1938. Taylor was a tutor in modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1938 to 1963 and a research fellow there until 1976. He became a panel member of a BBC-TV news analysis program in 1950 and made regular television appearances thereafter. He was also popular as a journalist and lecturer. Though often sparking controversy with his unorthodox views, Taylor nonetheless maintained high standards of scholarship. Among his more than 30 publications are The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918 (1954; published as volume 1 of The Oxford History of Modern Europe) and English History 1914-1945 (1965). His most widely read and controversial book was The Origins of the Second World War (1961), in which he maintained that the war erupted because Great Britain and France vacillated between policies of appeasement and resistance toward Adolf Hitler. Taylor's autobiography, A Personal History, was published in 1983." (from EB)
Taylor has been used by the Holocaust revisionists, such as IHR but he was never this kind of revisionist, and never denied the reality of the Holocaust. He at one time praised the scholarship of the notorious David Irving, but he never endorsed the bogus Hitler Diaries or Irving's anti-Holocaust arguments. Taylor practiced a legitimate revisionism that is found in every field of history. Similar revisionists included Daniel J. Goldhagen who has argued that a deep-rooted anti-Semitism in Germany caused the Holocaust, not just Hitler and the Nazi party. Herbert Bix has challenged the traditional interpretation of Hirohito as a passive, remote figure-head, and has instead argued that the emperor was an active supporter of war policies.
References:
- Bix, Herbert P. Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. New York: HarperCollins, 2000
- Goldhagen, Daniel J. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. NY: Knopf, 1996.
- Taylor, A. J. P. The Origins of the Second World War. Middlesex: Penguin Books,1961.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
April 22 2004, 7:45 AM
Regardless of who started what first, the Axis Powers deserved every bit of punishment that was dished out. It's a shame that many civilian lives were lost, but it was a time before smart bombs. Total war was waged by reducing a nation's cities to rubble, and total war was required to defeat the Axis Powers.
The American Marine Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments.
---Mao Tse Sung to General Song, prior to Chosin Reservoir
When I was learning about WWII in the US, it was from a very American view point. Things didn't get very even handed until I started to learn from simulations (war gaming) that not everything was quite as neat and clear cut as the media and schools would have us believe.
When I was studying at Trent Polytechnic in 1977, I visited Coventry and the church they didn't rebuild. The guide talked about the terrible destruction and how Dresden was the British payback. BTW, when I visited the Imperial War Museum during that year, I learned that WWII was a battle between the English and Germans and Monty was a genius military commander (LOL).
Well, a few years ago we learned that Britain had broken the German cipher and knew most of what the Germans were planning, including the raid that ended up over Coventry. Some say that the British were partially to blame because they were attempting to jam the German guidance systems. In any case, just as the British knew exactly what was being shipped to North Africa and didn’t interdict everything so not to give away the secret that they knew the secret codes, they made a conscious decision not to defend Coventry with more than the assets already there. So, if this “information” is true, then to tell the English that Dresden was compensation for Coventry was pure political rubbish (nicest way I can express this in public). And for the complete destruction of Dresden because it was a military target, every German city was a transportation hub of some scale even if it did not have any military industry. And then there is scale/porportion:
http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/blitz/
The city was shrouded in a cloak of smoke and drizzle as people wandered around in a daze taking in the destruction around them. There were 4,330 homes destroyed and three-quarters of the city's factories damaged.
Amongst the rubble lay human remains some of whom were never identified; 554 men, women and children lay dead and 865 injured. It was perhaps a miracle that the figures were not higher considering the city had been hit by 30,000 incendiaries, 500 tons of high explosive, 50 landmines and 20 oil-mines, non-stop for eleven long hours. The world had never previously witnessed this sort of airborne destruction before and the Germans coined a new word for it 'coventrated'.'
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm
In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.
One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.
In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.
Perhaps we should mention at this point what the Americans were doing in the Pacific to Japan with their firebombing of population centers. More deaths were caused by the firebomb attacks than by the two atomic bombs.
And last but not least, the British bombed at night and accepted the lack of accuracy and the Americans bombed during the day and accepted the casualties: 53,000 in the 8th Air Force, 11% of all U.S. casualties in the war, greater than the USMC suffered in the Pacific.
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
May 27 2004, 12:59 PM
Warsaw and Roterdam are definately not terror bombings, Coventry is arguable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It starts even earlier with Guernica and Legion Condor.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Winston Churchill caracterized as a war criminal by German historian
May 27 2004, 5:04 PM
"Guernica"
I would be careful there too. Converted Ju 52 don't make the best precision bombers (the target was a bridge) particularly when they drop bombs from a ridiculous height. Show me one quote that states that the destruction of Guernica was planned.
