Talk:Pforzheim

General discussion on the air raid section

re: "While the production of precision instruments certainly was a fact, the very small scale of Pforzheim's railway facilities in those days (and up to this day) certainly did not justify an area bombardment." This is POV, can we have a citation?

I corrected the translation and took out the POV statement. This should be fine now. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

-->You cannot correct this translation, because it has not been translated from the German page in the first place. I wrote most of the history section from scratch and subsequently it has been modified in more or less reasonable ways by others. (Most of the other, non-history parts are indeed my translations of the German page.) And by the way, the air raid casualties numbers on the German page are not backed up by any references. Please, do more research before you change things. The German Pforzheim page has not been maintained well lately, and some people are making unreasonable changes there. With regard to the your POV opinion, I have added a note which should clarify things. I reverted your edits. Hild 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Mmounties distorts the number of casualties of the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945. The official number of casualties is 17.600, as can be verified, for example, in the article of the Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 23, 2005, under headline "Stadt gleicht Feuermeer". The percentage of 31.2% of the population that died is also wrong since the pre-war population was determined in the census of May 1939 as 79.011 persons. If user Mmounties has evidence for the figure he gives (i.e. 20,277), he should provide that evidence in the form of proper references. Hild 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The notes that Hild have provided are still his/her POV. Can we have a proper citation please? Kirkley 20/04/06

Kirkley, you may be surprised to read that I agree with you that I should back up my statements with a proper citation and a map. I do. The form of my statement is not correct, but the content is (which needs to be proved, of course). I included that sentence after some chap moved some substantial part of the bombing of Pforzheim section which I had written to the new page "Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II". They edited the history section in the Pforzheim page in such a way that only a simplistic point of view was represented (i.e. Pforzheim was area-bombed because it had precision instrument industry and a railway station which was used for moving German troops). This may have been the motif for putting this town on the RAF's list of possible bombing targets at the beginning, but later on the decision process appears to have been a little bit more complicated than this. With that sentence I simply pointed to one of the contradictions in this line of argument, and it seems it provided a little hint to the chaps who were working on "Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II", especially the "Reasons for the main raid" section. There, the argumentation eventually evolved into a form which is more realistic, but still is lacking some elements. So, my "tickling" may have served its purpose. Nonetheless, I was hoping these two chaps would return to the Pforzheim page and change that one-sided, simplistic view there, but so far I have been left disappointed. By the way, one-sidedness is also a problem on the German side, where some chaps are trying to play down the role of Pforzheim's companies in the German armament effort and distorting the numbers of casualties etc.. Mmounties, who seems to be a nice guy without bad intentions, was trapped by that when he translated that stuff, and I interfered. All I want is a balanced, fair representation of what was going on 60 years ago. The British Ambassador to Germany emphasized last year on February 23, 2005 at the Pforzheim main cemetery that nowadays the British people and the German people are part of the EU and are closely cooperating for the benefit of all of Europe and beyond. We therefore should be able to find a common denominator for representing the dark hours of our common history. I do hope that at Wikipedia we will be able to succeed in achieving this goal. That said, I am planning to edit the paragraph in question in the Pforzheim history section and adding some more information to "Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II: Reasons for the main raid" section next weekend, including the citations. Constructive feedback will be welcome and necessary. Hild 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Hild. Sorry for not responding earlier but I was away (offline because of a move cross-country). Regarding your post on my talk page, please use the plus sign at the top of talk pages. That will put the post in the appropriate place. New posts are put at the bottom of a talk page. If you click the plus sign at the top of the page it will automatically put any post in the correct place.

• Regarding the facts you stated in the article about Pforzheim, if you can back them up with sources and quote the sources in the reference section, I'll gladly accept them as facts. When I looked at the section I translated from the German article, those references were not provided. Hence, the substitution with translated text. Also, if you think the facts in the German article are not correct, it would really be good if you could correct the German article as well and provide sources there as well, as it really isn't very good to have two articles about the same air raids on the same town cite different facts.

• We very carefully avoid to state points of view in our articles as this is an encyclopedia and not an op-ed piece in a newspaper or magazine. The sentence in which you state that the bombardement was not justified is such a POV that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. For this reason I again remove it from the article.

• Each article in this encyclopedia must be able to pretty much stand on its own. If you state specific figures and facts such as in the air raids on Pforzheim, you really need to reference them in this article. Asking readers to search them out from other articles across the encyclopedia (see Section Notes on History) is not adequate. Please add a "Reference" section and provide the references for facts used in this article there. If you based a substantial portion, or even any portion, of the article on the corresponding German article then please reference the German article in the Reference section as well and also provide the references quoted by the German article.

• Since I gather from your comments that you didn't translate the article from the German article, or at least didn't translate it in its entirety, I'm going to ask one of the editors I work with in the German Wikipedia and who I know speaks English very well to also give the article a look-see so that we have a second pair of eyes review it and make sure all stated correctly. --Mmounties (Talk) 06:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Message from user:Hild to user:Mmounties: I agree with what you say and I will include all references into the Pforzheim article in the course of time. The largest problem I have is the bombardment section because some people on both sides (i.e. German as well as British) are quite sensitive regarding this topic. I actually expected this and therefore refrained from even touching the "raid reason" question in my first version of the article; I am not a military historian, but it seems we need some kind of explanation that is balanced and logical enough to at least remotely satisfy both factions. I have done my homework now and have written up some draft on the "reason for the raid" and put it now on to this page, not the main article page, in order to have it discussed. Most of all, I would like to hear your comments together with suggestions on how to include the final version of it in the main page, as it turned out a little long. Hild 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmounties asked me to have a look at this. I have made some corrections to the draft of Hild, and it seems to be fine to me now, including all the proper citations. However, it indeed IS quite long. This is justified for such a sensitive topic, but I don't think the main Pforzheim article is the right place for it. How about integrating it into the article Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II? It would fit well there. Two or three short sentences plus a wikilink to the more specific article would then be sufficient in the Pforzheim article. Any numbers, facts etc. stated in these few sentences can be properly referenced there as well, of course.

Mmounties has expressed concern about differing numbers of people killed because of the air raid in the English and German articles. I have corrected the number in the German article to 17,600, since the text by Christian Groh, from the city archive of Pforzheim, seems to be reliable to me. I have included references to the Groh article there.

What do you think about my proposal? Let me know here. Regards --Rosenzweig 13:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Rosenzweig, thanks for responding, checking the draft, and correcting it. I agree with your proposal to integrate the "raid reason" into article Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II and providing a short summary in the Pforzheim article. However, I think it would be wise to obtain the opinion of people working on "Military History" (there seems to exist a portal) and see whether we can reach a consensus on this topic. What do you think? Also, thanks for changing the number of casualties given on the German Pforzheim page to the official estimate. Hild 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hild, I've seen your response. Let's wait for what Mmounties has to say before proceeding further, she hasn't been active here the last few days. Regards --Rosenzweig 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm only just getting back into editing after being tied up by my move much more than anticipated. It looks like the two of you have come up with a very good way to handle the subject and data. And the article is well referenced now and all. Love it! Please accept my thanks to both of you! And I agree that the reason for the bombardment would probably better be located in the article about the Bombing of Pforzheim though, if inserted there, I'd perhaps try to make the language a little tighter (for instance, remove the introductory sentence and reword the second). But you may want to give that a go first and it would be easier to do once the text has been inserted in it's intended place. Good job, Hild! --Mmounties (Talk) 19:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it seems all three of us agree in principle. Now Hild, you wanted to obtain some other opinions from a Military History side? I'd say go ahead. --Rosenzweig 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Draft of text: On the reason for the Pforzheim bombardment

In the past, much has been written about the reason for the bombing of Pforzheim. Especially as Pforzheim was only a regional center with the character of a country town and only moderate industries, and because the relative number of casualties was so high (about one quarter of the population), the reason for the bombardment has stirred up much controversy. The RAF Bomber Command, which made the decision, so far has not disclosed all details about how the decision was made. The relevant, known facts are the following:

1. In response to the bombing of cities in the United Kingdom by the German Luftwaffe in 1940/1941, the British cabinet approved the aerial bombing of German cities by carpet bombing in early 1942. The aim was to break the morale of the population and disrupt industrial activity in Germany. Details are given in article Area bombardment.

2. Pforzheim appeared on a list of bombing targets in November 1944 with lowest priority on a scale of 5 priority levels. ^[1] A report compiled for RAF Bomber Command dated 28 June 1944, stated that Pforzheim was "one of the centres of the German jewellery and watch making trade and is therefore likely to have become of considerable importance in the production of precision instruments [of use in the war effort]." An Allied report issued in August 1944 stated that "almost every house in this town centre is a small workshop" and that there were few larger factories in the south and one in the north of the city centre. ^[2]

3. The mission order to bomb Pforzheim issued by the Bomber Command states as the intention of the raid on Pforzheim "to destroy built up area and associated industries and rail facilities". ^[3]

The British cabinet's decision to carpet bomb German cities and towns was carried out decisively by the RAF Bomber Command from mid 1943 under the leadership of Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur T. Harris. By February 1945 many of the higher priority targets had already been damaged badly (some of them repeatedly), and aided by the air superiority over Germany, which the Allies had gained by mid 1944, almost every day hundreds, sometimes more than 1000, RAF aircraft were on bombing missions to German cities and towns. The still (mostly) undamaged, but potential targets in western Germany left at that time were lower priority targets, such as Pforzheim, and most likely these were now increasingly considered in day-to-day target decision making. ^[4]

On February 23, 1945, cloud cover over central Germany and the Ruhr district prevented major air raids on higher priority targets there, while good visibility was predicted for southwest Germany. ^[5] So it apparently was decided to dispatch one division of the bomber fleet to destroy the built up area of Pforzheim, its associated industries and rail facilities. It was clear that the destruction of built-up area would entail a large number of civilian casualties, but this possibility had been anticipated and was put up with by the British cabinet when it made its decision in 1942, just as the German leadership earlier had ordered the bombing of Polish and British cities inspite of a large number of anticipated casualties. On the evening of the raid, the illuminant markings dropped in place over Pforzheim by pathfinder aircraft for delimiting the area to be bombed by the stream of bomber aircraft marked an area that included a large chunk of Pforzheim town area. A navigator of one the Lancaster aircraft reported that from a distance of 40 kilometres he saw a perfect ring of yellow light markers inside of which a field of green markers had been placed. ^[6] The RAF Bomber Command Campaign Diary of February 1945 reports for 23/24 February 1945: "The marking and bombing, from only 8,000 ft, were particularly accurate and damage of a most severe nature was inflicted on Pforzheim." The map showing the destroyed area on the official website of the City of Pforzheim shows that the marked ring-shaped area must have included the railway facilities and many factories, but the largest part of it were areas with family homes, apartment houses, shops, churches and public facilities. ^[7][8]

Judging by these accounts, the bombing of Pforzheim appears to have been a routine mission for the RAF along the lines of the carpet bombardment campaign. Working down the list, it was "Pforzheim's turn", as well as a bit of bad luck as far as the clear weather conditions were concerned. There is no reason to believe that any single one of the three aspects included in the mission order, i.e. "destroy built up area", "destroy associated industries" and "destroy rail facilities", was more dominant than the two others. In Pforzheim there was a built-up area of significant size and its population, there were factories which since May 29, 1942 had been manufacturing precious metal materials and precision machinery parts for the German armament effort ^[9] (this was most likely the reason for about 3,000 forced-labor workers to be present in town ^[10]; they would not be hand-crafting jewellery), and there was a modest (passenger) railway station and two freight railway yards through which military personnel trains and freight trains loaded with military equipment undoubtedly were rolling - as was the case almost everywhere on Germany's rails. We have no reports nor other indications that Pforzheim's railway facilities were used in other than the usual ways during the war. In fact, these facilities were quite small on an absolute scale (about 100 meters in width) and also small in comparison with the total town area, as can be verified by examining the "area of destruction map" of Pforzheim. ^[11]

The crews of a reconnaissance flight on Febr. 25, 1945 by the USAAF issued a report on the following day which gave an assessment of the destruction of the built-up area, the destruction of the buildings of ten of the larger companies involved in metal processing and instruments manufacture, the destruction of public buildings, and the destruction of the railway station and two freight yards. The RAF had its own reconnaissance flight on Febr. 28, 1945. ^[12] A post-war survey was carried out by the RAF to determine how much of the built-up area had been destroyed (result: 83%). ^[13] These reports reflect all three aspects of the mission order.

Thus in summary, unless we receive direct evidence from the RAF that one of the above-cited three aspects of the mission order was more prominent than the two others, all three aspects must be considered as having been equally important in the decision to bomb Pforzheim.

However, there seems to be one more aspect which is worth pondering. By February 1945 the German military was loosing ground both in the east and the west, and the western front line was rapidly approaching the Rhine river. Pforzheim is located only about 30 kilometers from the Rhine river. The RAF Bomber Command Campaign Diaries of February and March 1945 ^[14][15] reveal a concentration of strikes at cities and towns close to the Rhine: Mönchengladbach (Febr. 1), Ludwigshafen (Febr. 1), Mainz (Febr. 1), Siegen (Febr. 1), Wiesbaden (Febr. 2), Karlsruhe (Febr. 2), Bonn (Febr. 4), Goch (Febr. 7), Kleve (Febr. 7), Mainz (Febr. 7), Duisburg (Febr. 21), Worms (Febr. 21), Pforzheim (Febr. 23), Mainz (Febr. 27), Mannheim (March 1), Cologne (March 2), Zweibrücken (March 14), Hagen (March 15), Rheine (March 21), Wesel (Febr. 16, March 6, 23). This list does not include the strikes against war-crucial targets such as oil refineries and heavy armament factories, especially those in the Ruhr district. Most of these towns suffered heavy blows, only Karlsruhe escaped because the RAF crews were unable to locate it because of cloud cover. The possibility that the RAF through these attacks was "preparing the ground" for the imminent invasion of German territory of state may therefore be considered as real. This kind of reasoning has been stated explicitly in the case of the February 14, 1945 bombardment of Dresden, which RAF Bomber Command claims that it was destroyed in preparation for the invasion by the Red Army on the eastern front line ^[16], and this reason was also cited in the case of the bombardment of Zweibrücken close to the western front line. ^[17] If true, this argument could serve as one additional reason for the main raid on Pforzheim, but on the other hand it is not clear why Pforzheim was attacked and not the much larger Karlsruhe, which had more important railway facilities, was closer to the front line, had been missed once before, and must have had weather conditions similar to those in Pforzheim. Indeed, difficult to explain aspects remain. As much as this line of argumentation on the whole appears to be reasonable and probable, we do lack direct evidence from RAF documents to back it up.

References

• Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary
• Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary February 1945
• Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary March 1945
• Pforzheim - 23 February 1945 by Christian Groh. In German.
• Folge14: "23.Februar1945" Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 16 2005, No.38, p.20. In German.
• Folge16: "23.Februar1945" Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 18 2005, No.40, p.23. In German.
• Folge20: "23.Februar1945" Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 23 2005, No.44, p.22. In German.
• Folge22: "23.Februar1945" Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 25 2005, No.46, p.24. In German.
• Folge23: "23.Februar1945" Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 26 2005, No.47, p.24. In German.
• Map of destroyed town area

Notes

1. ^ References Christian Groh, Pforzheim.
2. ^ References Christian Groh, Pforzheim.
3. ^ References Christian Groh, Pforzheim.
4. ^ References Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary.
5. ^ References Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 18 2005 under headline "Fuellziel bedeutet Todesurteil".
6. ^ References Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 23 2005.
7. ^ References Map of destroyed town area. It shows the city plan of 1945. Black area indicates destroyed buildings, while red area indicates undamaged buildings.
8. ^ References Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 25 2005 also shows the map of destroyed area with textual explanations.
9. ^ References Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 16 2005 under headline "Code Yellowfin in Kritik".
10. ^ References Christian Groh, Pforzheim.
11. ^ References The railway facilities appear on the map of destroyed town area in the upper half, with rails running horizontally in east-west direction.
12. ^ References Pforzheimer Zeitung of February 26 2005.
13. ^ References Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary February 1945.
14. ^ References Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary February 1945.
15. ^ References Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary March 1945.
16. ^ References Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary February 1945.
17. ^ References Official RAF Web Site: Campaign Diary March 1945.

" ...it is not clear why Pforzheim was attacked and not the much larger Karlsruhe, which had more important railway facilities, was closer to the front line, had been missed once before ... " - the British were reading the German Deutsche Reichsbahn signals detailing the traffic using the railways, and it is possible they didn't bomb Karlsruhe because the Wehrmacht supplies to a particular Front at the time weren't being routed through Karlsruhe, but through Pforzheim.

At that stage of the war Germany's railways were being bombed and rocketed by Allied aircraft and so lines could be out of service necessitating trains being re-routed through other, perhaps lesser used, areas. It's possible Pforzheim was bombed because a train carrying troops or armour was due through there going to the Front and they wanted to stop or delay it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pforzheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watchreport.com/2007/04/timex_tx_watche.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705101909/http://www.pforzheim.de/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BILDER/CHRONIK/ZERSTOERUNGSKARTE.PDF to http://www.pforzheim.de/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BILDER/CHRONIK/ZERSTOERUNGSKARTE.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

photos

The photograph of the school is in the wrong place. 90.249.31.216 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)