When you go into a fight you go into it to win, anything else is stupid. In a world war, against a regime such as the Nazis or Japanese you must win, and by any means, carpet bombing, blanket bombing and in the end nuclear bombing. It is said that history is written by the winners. In this PC world everyone has rights, so I give the enemy the right to be second, anything else is defeat. I feel great sorrow for those who died in and those who survived Coventry and the London blitz and anywhere else that was bombed by the forces who started the war. To those who bombed my nation and allies I feel nothing. To start a world war and lose it is just.....tough. Take it on the chin and live with it, we owe you nothing.
One difference between Coventry and Hamburg is that the promoter of the bombing of Hamburg, Arthur Harris, was awarded a baronetcy and later a statue (even though he emigrated to apartheid-building South Africa), whereas Hermann Goering, the promoter of the bombing of Coventry, committed suicide in his condemned cell.
Hitler decided on bombing Britain into submission and in doing so he bombed nearly every city in the UK. When he bombed London in 1940 the Germans worked hard in trying to create a firestorm with round the clock bombing with HE and incendiaries, and it nearly worked. Now when we were strong enough and well equipped with heavy bombers we did the same to the Germans. The only slight difference at that time is that we were not equipped to defend our selfs from night bombing raids, were as the RAF paid quite a high price on most of their raids over Germany. The difference was Hitler started it and we finished it. The British people who lived in the bombed cities did not cry for the Germans they would understand what they were going through, but if it helped bring the war closer to an end then so be it. You also had a group of people that had not been bombed in this country who thought we were going over the top. Still if you think what we did to the Germans was bad then look at the fire raids that the Americans carried out on Japan, on one raid on Tokyo more people died in a single fire raid that they did through the blast of both Atom bombs.
Unreflected because things really aren't as simple as that. I find the statement that in a war "against a regime such as the Nazis or Japanese you must win, and by any means [...]" very questionable - especially coming so late after the events took place and from someone who wasn't involved. Bringing up the complex of bellum iustum would certainly go beyond the scope of this discussion, but it should hopefully be clear that the end does not always justify the means. (Examples needed?) Besides, why should one not be allowed to discuss the bombing of Dresden* in an objective and historically accurate manner? Just because Germany started a war - no matter how criminal and unjust its nature - and lost it, it's (still!) 'STFU & GTFO'?? And as a general remark: The intentions of an attack should always be taken into consideration; a bombing might have made the impression of a terror attack when it wasn't intended as one - and the other way round. This might not make a difference for those subject to it, but for the historical discussion it greatly matters. *edit: Or Hamburg
I find it odd that any one can say that the war against Germans and Japanese should not have been pursued at any costs. I wonder if this person has considered what the cost would have been if the allies had lost the war. The Germans had already fed some 6 million people into the ovens and if the Allies just how many more people would have followed them. When you go to war you have one objective and that is to win, if you win you can be generous in your Victory as the Allies were, if you lose any war you have to take what the victors deal out to you, the answer is don't lose
Rightly or Wrongly I always think that Coventry is thrown up when the blitz is mentioned because they (Churchill and his government) knew Coventry was going to be bombed but they did nothing because they didn't want the Germans to realise they had cracked a code or intercepted a signal that it was going to be bombed. Regards Andy Although part of a posting on 6.12.09, in the context of further exploring this quote, I would draw interested members attention to a thread on the bombing of Coventry in another forum, namely: The Bombing of Coventry, 14 November 1940 - World Naval Ships Forums Posts 1, 3 and 17 are the specfic ones of interest within the thread reference. Rattler
I find it odd that any one can say that the war against Germans and Japanese should not have been pursued at any costs. I wonder if this person has considered what the cost would have been if the allies had lost the war. The Germans had already fed some 6 million people into the ovens and if the Allies just how many more people would have followed them. When you go to war you have one objective and that is to win, if you win you can be generous in your Victory as the Allies were, if you lose any war you have to take what the victors deal out to you, the answer is don't lose I can only assume that you mean me by "this person" (please address me personally next time, so I know for sure). I'm working on my dissertation about the German Army in WW2 and I have been studying the Third Reich and its war for several years so rest assured that I am quite familiar with it. Maybe this is the very reason I cringe when it's suggested that in a war you may use any means there are. Even though WW2 was not a Total War, it comes quite close to it; not only the Holocaust, but e.g. also the German-Soviet war showed what can happen when the end justifies the means. I am NOT suggesting the Allies fought a criminal war (and I never was) - all I'm saying is that as soon as you start using means that go way beyond international law etc. then you're getting on thin ice (not only from the legal but also moral point of view) even if the cause of your war was ultimately just.
I can only assume that you mean me by "this person" (please address me personally next time, so I know for sure). I'm working on my dissertation about the German Army in WW2 and I have been studying the Third Reich and its war for several years so rest assured that I am quite familiar with it. Maybe this is the very reason I cringe when it's suggested that in a war you may use any means there are. Even though WW2 was not a Total War, it comes quite close to it; not only the Holocaust, but e.g. also the German-Soviet war showed what can happen when the end justifies the means. I am NOT suggesting the Allies fought a criminal war (and I never was) - all I'm saying is that as soon as you start using means that go way beyond international law etc. then you're getting on thin ice (not only from the legal but also moral point of view) even if the cause of your war was ultimately just. Please explain why you believe that WW2 was not a Total War.
Please explain why you believe that WW2 was not a Total War. Total War is an ideal/perfect state and thus only a theoretical construct. Like I said above, the Second World War indeed got very close to that state - closer than any other conflict.
Heimbrent Can you please explain why you don't think that the war was total in Britain. All women of a certain age range had to register for work or the armed forces and those that took the work option could be sent any where in the country where there labour was required, even if it was working on the Farm. All males had to register for Military service and you were only excused if you were working on a military projects of for the general war production, and they would tell you if they thought what you were doing was important All food was rationed Your house never belonged to you during the war as a billeting officer would come around and tell you how many of you would sleep in one room and in one bed, then the rest of the house would be given over to the forces. Travel was very restricted and many areas were closed to every one including the residents who would be shipped out. You were also banned from owing shares in overseas companies, gold or foreign currency. Well thats about a total as it can get
Tab, like I wrote above, the concept of Total War is a theoretical one. Just because some aspects of the war were total (and I did not deny that) doesn't make the whole war a total one. But this thread is not about Total War, is it? Because the way I see it (and that's just my personal opinion) Total War and the bombings of German cities - whichever city you chose - are two different subjects. One deals with the question if/in what respect WW2 was total, and the other deals with the air war and its various aspects. However, if you assume that WW2 was a Total War and that a Total War justifies the use of any means then I can see where you're coming from. My understanding of it is different though (perhaps also because I'm not British); I think the bombings of German cities should be researched and put into context of the whole war - and that this research deserves more detail than just "you lost, deal with it". (Just to make that perfectly clear: This is not about retribution, or apologies or anything, it's about historical accuracy - also for the sake of our future.)
Heimbrent.... Now if the Germans feel that the bombing of these Cities was uncalled for then how do they rate what they did to all the other British Cities when they ruled the night skies over Britain and they bombed at will.
All women of a certain age range had to register for work or the armed forces and those that took the work option could be sent any where in the country where there labour was required, even if it was working on the Farm. All males had to register for Military service and you were only excused if you were working on a military projects of for the general war production, and they would tell you if they thought what you were doing was important ...as of the outbreak of war - and on the eve of the invasion of France - there were up to half a million unemployed males in the UK! All food was rationed Some items were not; and food Rationing was not uniform, there were certain regional variations. Your house never belonged to you during the war as a billeting officer would come around and tell you how many of you would sleep in one room and in one bed, then the rest of the house would be given over to the forces. Only IF your house was required in the short, medium or long term as a billet. Travel was very restricted In what way? Was there a requirement for travel permits etc.? Not that I'm aware of...forces personnel being the exception. and many areas were closed to every one including the residents who would be shipped out. SOME areas...quite a few actually...were closed in this way; several small (and famous because of it) villages on training/firing ranges, and the town of Dover. But "many" is somewhat of an exaggeration.
Heimbrent.... Now if the Germans feel that the bombing of these Cities was uncalled for then how do they rate what they did to all the other British Cities when they ruled the night skies over Britain and they bombed at will. Seriously, what are you actually trying to get at?! Nowhere above did I say that "the Germans feel that the bombing of these cities was uncalled for". Most Germans see the war (including bombings) as what it was - a criminal venture. They don't justify the actions of the Third Reich, neither did/do I. I can only repeat what I wrote earlier: It's about the approach to history, and about looking at more than one side of an issue. There is not only the British view (contemporary and now) on the bombing of Hamburg (or any city), there's also a German view. Apparently it's by taking various views into account that you will get a more objective perspective.
Clearly this topic has scratched a nerve. I think that some people may have inferred from one or more of Heimbrent's remarks that he (or others) felt that the bombing of German cities was unethical. In his clarifications, he says that this was not his meaning. I also believe that many participants here feel that whatever was done to Germany in retaliation was fair play. And if I may attempt to speak for some, they are very upset with modern day historians trying to redefine those actions as "criminal". I'm not saying that Heimbrent was doing this, I'm just stating my opinion as to why the debate seems so fevered. My own opinion is clear: Germany started it, it WAS Total War, they got what they deserved, and no action taken by the Allies could be defined as criminal in nature. I would qualify for a German passport if I wanted one (I don't). I also have business friends/contacts living in Germany, and they are good, decent people. Marc
I can only repeat what I wrote earlier: It's about the approach to history, and about looking at more than one side of an issue. There is not only the British view (contemporary and now) on the bombing of Hamburg (or any city), there's also a German view. Apparently it's by taking various views into account that you will get a more objective perspective. It is a little late to dispute whether WW2 was Total War. The perpetrators and victims at the time recognised it as such. As to mass/carpet/saturation bombing of cities, Vera Brittain descibed it at the time as "methods of barbarism", a description which has never been bettered.
I keep seeing this thread title and thinking; "That's a damned strange football fixture" 'Total War' is a tricky phrase though isn't it. Germany can be said to have resisted the concept for quite a long time in the wider sense - it stands somewhat apart from pure military aggression and target selection, and possibly has to affect the civil life of a state somewhat. Real mobilisation of the female workforce, cutting down on normal life for the man in the street, diversion of economy completely to the war effort etc. took 'em a a longish time, and they never quite did it to the extent of the allied nations if memory serves. (shooting from the hip here, and expecting to be shot down, long time since I really read anything about it.) I suppose you first have to get a clear definition of what 'Total War' really means, and some sort of agreement on that definition, before discussing it properly without confusion.
