Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Speidel references orphaned.

There are inline references to "Speidel, p. 18", but no book by Speidel in the reference list. Could someone who knows the correct book please add the details? Hohum (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speidel, William. The German Air Force in the Polish Campaign of 1939. AFHRA, 1956.

Kurfürst (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually by General der Flieger Wilhelm Speidel, The Luftwaffe in the Polish Campaign of 1939. Available in full, online from AFHRA here:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/studies4.asp

Vol1 http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/468148.pdf 20MB

Vol2 http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/468149.pdf 35MB

Vol3 http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/468150.pdf 20MB

It is clearly a primary source, and not the work of an historian. I believe we need to remove all of the passages cited by it. Hohum (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally the work by Speidel is a secondary source (it an analysis, written in 1956, some sixteen years after the events by a military expert and a career soldier - BTW also C-in-C of NATO forces in C. Europe after the war. It contains no primary sources other than references, and it is published by a respectable organisation, AFHRA, and is verifiable by everyone). It also makes no conclusion in the cited text, with the source only used to describe the orders for the campaign. Kurfürst (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Speidel is a source for historians, not for us. Loosmark (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It is in NO WAY a secondary source. If it makes no conclusion it is even more of a primary source. Being published by AFHRA doesn't stop it being a primary source either. It's written by a Luftwaffe officer who served in the conflict, not a historian. Being written later doesn't change the fact - although it appears to be based from an earlier, contemporary work anyway. Hohum (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course its a secondary source, and perfectly usable as such. And don't play with the words - it makes no conclusion about the general orders for the operations, even though it througly analyzes the reasons for errors and successes in the campagin atw. If you kindly review the relevant wiki policy, it is perfectly usable. 'Appears to be based from an earlier, contemporary work anyway' - time to decide wheater its a secondary source or not. 'ot a historian' - nonsense, not that it is a requirement that it has to come from a historian (I guess then Xenophon, Kershaw, Hogg etc. can't be cited either huh?) but from someone who has considerable expertise in the field; Speidel obviously has it. It appears that 'declaring' it a primary source is only a pretext why to remove material you just don't like. Which puzzles me a lot, since the material cited from Speidel only lists what were the generic tasks the LW had to fullfill in the campaign. Its also in full agreement with Hooton. Kurfürst (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can't tell that a declassified military report by someone who served in the action is a primary source, then there is a problem. The earlier work I referred to is "kriegsgeschichtliche studie ueber den polenfeldzug" by.... Wilhelm Speidel, which I suspect is his contemporary after action report Hohum (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"declassified military report" - since when? Its not a report, its a study, more precisly, the US translation of Speidel's work he published after the war in the 1950s (note that there are references to secondary sources in the study from 1951 and 1953). Speidel very specifically described what sources he used for his historical study, its obvious you didn't bother to read that before you passed your 'verdict' (specifically, Speidel notes that all 1939 German propaganda material was completely ignored). Furthermore, the original German was published by the Karlsruhe Air War Historical Group.. "kriegsgeschichtliche studie ueber den polenfeldzug" - contemporary after action report? I take you don't speak German. For you, the translation: Military historical study on the Polish campaign. I guess that nails the argument it being a 'primary source'. Kurfürst (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Speidel was directly involved with Luftwaffe, therefore it could be argued that he had interest to hide or at least minimaze info about the terror bombings. Loosmark (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Declassified military report: From the source I provided, very first line. "THIS PAGE DECLASSIFIED IA V E 12958",, then on the top and bottom of every other page. It's a primary source because it is written by a luftwaffe officer who served in the conflict.

"The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." from WP:PRIMARY Hohum (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of 'military report' there at all... The matter is quite clear: Wilhelm Speidel, Military historical study on the Polish campaign, published 1956, by the Karlsruhe Air War Historical Group. Do you still state its a contemporary primary source, against all reason? Moreover the actual wikipedia policy that you have might missed:

• Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.

This all fits for Speidel's work: published in 1956, an analytical and descriptive study of the campaign, using primary and secondary sources (if you actually bother to read the study, you will find out this yourself).

Moreover on primary sources:

• Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

Speidel is used a source for a description of the LW orders for the Polish campaign, in plain language, and is easily verifiable. The study was published by Karlsruhe Air War Historical Group. Moreover Speidel is widely used a reference by other authors, such as Hooton. Kurfürst (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover if you still insist to splits hairs over Speidel, the same LW orders are identically quoted by Polish aviation historian Jerzy Cinik, so.... 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

LW orders are primary sources too. Quoting them bare, just because they are used in a secondary source doesn't magically make that excerpt a secondary one. The secondary source included them as an example, and will have synthesis and conclusions about them. Yes, primary sources can be used, but carefully. they are being used in this article to do more than make descriptive claims. Hohum (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see any real reason not to include the material. They are merely desciptive claims, regardless of what you claim now. It seems to me that your goal is the same, only the arguments change. Kurfürst (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please learn how to use the colon in talk pages? It helps to keep the conversation tidy. Loosmark (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Selective use of Hooton (1994) on Warsaw bombins

Some elements from Hooton's books have been used in the article, but the cites have been severed by removing their contenxt. Hooton (and also Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase) gives the details of the actual execution of the operations on the 13, and the legal framework of the bombings once Warsaw become a fortress on the 20 September.

This context has been, however, removed from the article, distorting and misusing the source: ie.

• 'but Richthofen was furious to learn that Oberst Heinrich Seywald, Geschwaderkommodore of KG 77 and his Kommandeure on their own initiative ignored the selected targets in favour of purely military ones[37]; Seywald was relieved shortly thereafter.'[38]

• 'By then, Warsaw itself was a fortress garrisoned by some 150,000 men and therefore no longer an 'open city', so under the international rules of warfare it could be subjected to wholesale bombardment' .[39][40]

These circumstances need to be mention for NPOV, and let the reader make the conclusions; either use Hooton, or don't use him at all - picking parts some while ignoring others is a misuse of the sourced reference. Kurfürst (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the meantime one editor also removed Hooton stating on page 183 about strafings: The refugees and troops becoming mixed in the road and suffering terribly. [1]

Kurfürst (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop polluting this talk page with the same claims over and over again? It was already explained to you what is the proper context and why are some irrelevant for the article. If you want to make an article about the 1939 terror bombings shaped 100% the way you want it (with selective use of sources, apologists view on the Luftwaffe bombings and all that) start your own webpage and stop hijacking wikipedia for your POV pushing. Loosmark (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed the actions of the 13 September. Hooton is decisive in his conclusion that it was a terror bombing. Including everything he says about it when he makes this final conclusion clear is including too much detail within the overall article, which is supposed to be about strategic bombing during WWII. For the bombing of the 22 September, it just needs to be mentioned that it happened, and its effects. A full description of both events should go in the main article about the bombing of Warsaw, not here. Hohum (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about too much detail being devoted - either the article contains all of the context, or no context but the facts only. I would be inclined for the facts only - they bombed this and that, on that day etc. If someone wants to dig into the context and details, the main article about the bombing of Warsaw is the proper place for that. Kurfürst (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe enough context was given in my edits. Hohum (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the context you added was one-sided. Kurfürst (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be against you. We already have a request pending for a specialist projects comment. Since this is between more than just you and me, as this section is continuing a discussion from elsewhere on the page, asking for a Third opinion doesn't seem enough. Hohum (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite your claims that there is consensus, there is no meritful discussion. Editors who do not materially engage in discussion, and their part is limited to incivility and random combination of the words they often cannot even spell correctly, like 'POV pushing' 'allaged' 'controversial' 'revisionist' 'appologist' are not part of the consensus finding proccess, and thus consensus will be formed without them. I can only say that there seems to be a tendency on your part to discredit German sources, or other sources supporting German sources, and generally your edits result in a clearly anti-German change in the tone of the article, or a restriction on the German view of the events. I cannot say its intentional, but the tendency is clearly there in the results. Kurfürst (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black, anyone?. Kurfurst you are constantly bad mouthing Polish editors, spread false rumors they are tag-teaming, call Polish sources "commie sources", etc etc etc. And now you have the nerve to complain. As for the anti-German tone, depends what you mean by that. Luftwaffe's terror bombings most certainly deserve a negative tone as it should be. If you perceive that as an anti-German tone that's your problem. Loosmark (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal framework

Spretzler seems to have written a through study on the legal framework surrounding the bombings. It seems to be a good candidate to expand that section of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is big NO to all of the above from me and several other editors and I am tired of repeating myself. Please refer to previous discussions here and on other pages you were editing (Bombing of Wielun etc.) Please also remember that you are so far a lone editor who is trying to challenge an opinion of many, therefore PLEASE do not make any changes to this article before reaching concensus and PLEASE do not claim (as it happened before) that we have reached consensus already because so far the consensus is not in your favour. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, I suggest you read Wikipedia:I just don't like it because it seems to apply to you. You do not present any meritful arguements here, and have refused to take part in the consensus forming process several times. Please note that this will not impede the consensus finding process, but this, along with the tendentious uncommented removals of referenced information will be certainly weighted if this matter comes before an Request for Arbitration, along with the question of possible coordination. So please take up a more constructive attitude, and refrain from edits like this if that is what you ask from other editors. Kurfürst (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I just said above?? ..There is big NO to all of the above from me and several other editors--Jacurek (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst you remind me of that old joke when a guy drives on a highway and then hears on the radio: attention! there is a guy goin the wrong way on the highway. And then he says: hell it's not just one car, it's hundreds of them! I'd suggest you also stop accusing everybody of impeding consensus when in fact you are the only one on this page sabbotating consensus with your appologist view on the Luftwaffe terror bombings. And finally if you think you are going to intimidate anybody with your threats about Request for Arbitration you are wasting your time. If feel like doing it, do it already nobody is going to stop you but please stop using it as a psychological warfare. Loosmark (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific objections to revised, extended Poland section

Here Loosmark can discuss his specific objections about the following version of 'Poland' section:

---

Main articles: Invasion of Poland and Bombing of Warsaw

A German Heinkel He 111 bombing Warsaw in 1939

Survivor of bombing of Warsaw in the ruins of his home.

Wieluń, first Polish city destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing on 1 September 1939. German bombers destroyed 75% of all the buildings including a clearly marked hospital and the historic Gothic church killing approximately 1,200 civilians.

From the beginning of the war the German Luftwaffe engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities bombing civilian infrastructures, hospitals, schools as well as civilian population including refugees. The refugees and troops becoming mixed in the road and suffering terribly. Notably, the German Luftwaffe bombed cities like Warsaw, Wieluń and Frampol.

The directives issued to the Luftwaffe for the Polish Campaign were to prevent the Polish Air Force to influence the ground battles, or to perform attacks on German territory. In addition, it was to support the advance of the German ground forces through direct tactical and indirect air support with attacks against Polish mobilization centres and thus delay an orderly Polish strategic concentration of forces and to deny mobility for Polish reinforcements through destruction of strategic Polish rail routes. Preparations were made for a concentrated attack (Operation Wasserkante) by all bomber forces against targets in Warsaw. The bombing of rail network, crossroads and troop concentrations played havoc on Polish mobilisation, while attacks upon civilian and military targets in towns and cities disrupted command and control by wrecking the antiquated Polish signal network:

Polish Air Force bases in Cracow, Warsaw, Poznan and accross Poland, as well as Warsaw's PZL aircraft factory, were also the subject of intensse Luftwaffe bombing from September 1, 1939. Subsequent attacks on Warsaw targeted bridges on the Vistula river, communications centers and railways around the city. Despite the attacks on Polish airfields being only marginally effective and destorying only second line aircraft, in a period of a few days, Luftwaffe numerical and technological superiority took its toll on the PLW, and by 6 Sepetember the Polish Air Force was forced to concede the skies to the Luftwaffe. So effective were the attacks on the operational level that from 5 September the shortage of targets led to a change of emphasis to tactical support, though attacks on railway and transportation targets remained of importance. Between 3 and 11 September, LnAbt 100 conducted four precision night missions using the X-Gerät blind bombing navigation system for the first time in the war, destroying a munitions dump. On the 13 of September, following orders of the ObdL to launch an attack on northern Warsaw, the Jewish Quarters, and also military targets, justified as being for unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers 183 bomber sorties were flown with 50:50 load of high explosives and incendiaries, reporting to have set the Jewish Quarter ablaze. On 14 September the French Air attaché in Warsaw reported to Paris that "... the German Air Force acted in accordance to the international laws of war [...] and bombed only targets of military nature. Therefore, there is no reason for French retorsions." On 22 September Wolfram von Richthofen requested: "Urgently request exploitation of last opportunity for large-scale experiment as devastation terror raid ... Every effort will be made to eradicate Warsaw completely". His request was rejected. However, Hitler issued an order to prevent civilians from leaving the city and to continue with the bombing, which he thought would make the Poles surrender faster.

[[:Image:Frampol bombing.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Before (left) and after (right) the Luftwaffe Bombing of Frampol. It was almost totally destroyed.]]

With the commence of the Soviet invasion on 17 September, Luftwaffe operations in central and southern Poland and attacks on enemy troops coloumns immidiately ceased to avoid bombing of friendly troops. Parallel to that, the Luftwaffe begun to withdraw most of its squadrons back to Germany for rest&refit. Three days later Warsaw was surrounded by the Wehrmacht, and hundreds of thousands of leaflets were dropped on the city, instructing the citizens to evacuate the city pending a possible bomber attack. On 25 September the Luftwaffe, parallel with artillery bombardment, flew 1,150 sorties and dropped 560 tonnes of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries to soften up the defences of the besieged city. To conserve the strength of the bomber units for the upcoming western campaign, the modern He 111 bombers were replaced by Ju 52 transports using "worse than primitive methods" for the bombing. Due to prevailing strong winds they achieved poor accuracy, even causing some casualties to besieging German troops. As result of the aerial and artillery bombardment, intense street fighting between German infantry and armor units and Polish infantry and artillery 10 percent of the buildings in the city were destroyed, and 40,000 civilians killed.

---

Kurfürst (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

ok Kurfust is again at work. He makes great changes to the article, adds controversial stuff, removes things he doesn't like and then he also changes the order of the text and makes a couple of small edits to muddy the waters even further. Since there are obviously disagreements what should be in this article (to be more precise it's Kurfust appoligist views on the Luftwaffe terror bombings VS all other editors) I'd like to ask Kurfust to stop butchering the article the way he pleases and to discuss major changes before performing them. Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Any specific points...? Its time to discuss specific concerns. We heard the lamenting about 'controversial stuff', the 'apologist views' and 'muddy waters about LW terror bombing stuff' a thousend times already... it utterly vague, unconstructive and useless.

Also you have been warned, several times, by several editors and administrators to assume good faith and remain civil. Are you incapable or just unwilling to do that? Kurfürst (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are specific points on this talk page that you are already engaged in. It is unhelpful to create yet another section which breaks up the discussions already underway. Hohum (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The butchering of the article

ok Kurfust is again at work. He makes great changes to the article, adds controversial stuff, removes things he doesn't like and then he also changes the order of the text and makes a couple of small edits to muddy the waters even further. Since there are obviously disagreements what should be in this article (to be more precise it's Kurfust appoligist views on the Luftwaffe terror bombings VS all other editors) I'd like to ask Kurfust to stop butchering the article the way he pleases and to discuss major changes before performing them. Loosmark (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

note i'm reposting this again because Kurfust deleted the title of the section and tried to hide it by inserted a long section of text from the article before my text. @Kurfust answer under this text and do NOT add text infront of it! Loosmark (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its obvious why the same thing does not need to be discussed in two seperate sections, with a POV title. Anyway...

Any specific points...? Its time to discuss specific concerns. We heard the lamenting about 'controversial stuff', the 'apologist views' and 'muddy waters about LW terror bombing stuff' a thousend times already... it utterly vague, unconstructive and useless.

Also you have been warned, several times, by several editors and administrators to assume good faith and remain civil. Are you incapable or just unwilling to do that? Kurfürst (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

concerns were already mentioned all over this talk page. You are constantly POV pushing an appologist view on the German terror bombing. Your use of sources is selective and you don't put things in the proper context. Also before introducing major changes to the article you should discuss it here and try to reach some sort of consensus. Loosmark (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Any specific points? Any specific suggestions? Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Be bold Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" Kurfürst (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are specific points all over this talk page that you are already engaged in, yet you have just made several contentious edits despite lack of consensus, or against clear consensus. You also don't appear to be content to wait for some advice from the most relevant group on wikipedia - the WPMILHIST WWII taskforce which you know has been contacted. Edits made under the flag of "be bold" can expect to be reverted if consensus is against them. Consensus is largely against them. Hohum (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst's behaviour is very unacceptable. Can some admin. get involved here please?--Jacurek (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"There are specific points all over this talk page" - which is why you can't tell me any, right, and we get these vague, useless comments about 'POV pushing appologist revisiont controversial German terror bombing' stuff all the time...? I don't see any consenus, I see only ridiculously vague excuses which serve only a pretext to stonewalling edits, regardless of the content being added.

Lets be clear about one thing. Neither you, neither the Polish editors added anything to this article. Nothing, nada. Kurfürst (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. The issues all over this talk page are readily obvious. I haven't made any accusations about apologist views. Hohum (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither you, neither the Polish editors added anything to this article. Nothing, nada. Yeah right; in reality Hohum's checking your sources, putting things in the proper context and adding things which you conveniently "forgot" (like for example that Hooton talks directly about terror bombings) improved the article massively. As for your insults towards the Polish editors, it speaks for itself really... Loosmark (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"The issues all over this talk page are readily obvious." - indeed: Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Kurfürst (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please retract your uncivil comments about me. I strive to be civil to other editors and expect the same. Hohum (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have added any uncivil comments about you - if you felt that way, I am sorry. I merely mentioned that it was I who built 95% of that section, with meticulus research work, and that the 'specific points' you seem to observe 'all over this talk page' seem to be limited to a varying combination of the expressions 'POV pushing', 'appologist'(sic!), 'revisiont', 'controversial', 'terror bombing'. :: These are hard meritful arguements or specific points. Kurfürst (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If we take as an example Hooton then your "meticulus research work" leaves a lot to be desired. You didn't mention that Hooton makes it clear that some of the bombings were terror bombings, worse than that you used Hooton for indirectly claiming there were no terror bombings. So you'll understand if I don't have too high an opinion of your "meticulus research work". Loosmark (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't accused anyone of POV pushing. I have found additional contexts that were omitted, and added them, only to be accused of narrowing the context, and now, of adding nothing to the article. While your opinion might be that edits have been made due to people simply not liking them, it doesn't help matters to repeatedly make contentious edits against consensus. I advise leaving the status quo until someone from WPMILHIST has time to advise us on the issues. They may take a few days, but they are the best placed to help since this requires specialist knowledge. The RfC guidelines suggest doing this before a more generic RfC, which we probably should move on to if there is no response from WPMILHIST for few more days, or the current edit warring continues.

Several editors should stop making accusations, they are unhelpful and only lead to escalation. Hohum (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your claims about the alleged consensus, the suggested changes in my recent edits were clearly open to discussion for all members. There was no meritful reply to it, apart from the usual nonsense about the 'appologist' stuff and some further examples of incivility. These are clearly merely Wikipedia:I just don't like it arguements from an editor who refuses to take part in the consensus finding process from the start, and who's actions about 'building' this article are confined to clicking on the big red revert button whenever he sees any change, which OTOH he refuses to discuss. Its foolish to think that this kind of behaviour - Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" - is going to impede the constructive process. It won't - it is wiki policy that it shouldn't, and for a good reason.

OTOH, it seems to be a reasonable request about the status quo, and certainly can be a viable solution, provided other editors respect it as well. Kurfürst (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is full of discussions about your sources, arguments and claims. Whatever improbable idea or source you get, we discuss it here. So with that in mind I'd advise you, once again, to please stop lying that editors don't want to be involved in discussions, it's highly disgraceful that you keep trumpeting that. Even if you repeat it another 100000000000000000 times it still won't be true. Also you are the only one trying to derail the status quo, today alone you made 14 (with word: fourtheen) edits to the article. Also please not that this isn't your personal webpage so you don't get to decide what is meritful and what not. Loosmark (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they are repeatedly reverted by multiple authors is a pretty good indication of an opposing consensus, don't you think? Opposing consensus is not a lack of consensus.

Please, everyone be civil. Hohum (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it is the indication of something else, considering the circumstances (sudden large influx of Polish editors after the first one reverted edits with the comment 'German war propaganda', refusal of meritful discussion etc.). To me it appears a textbook example of the characteristics detailed at Wikipedia:Tag team. Kurfürst (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It ain't a tag team but an entire army: On Supermarine Spitfire operational history and King George V class battleship (1939), in only the last 24hrs, a whole host of editors are qestioning him. Dapi89 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Its 'questioning', Dapi. BTW - do you mean '24.108.224.96' removing a reference as Damwiki1 and his suspected sock puppet removed earlier, or Minorhistorian removing a reference which he later admitted on the talk page to have already seen and accepted in another article...? Interesting information you shared with us, thank you but - relevance to the discussion? I must note though that lately you have developed an unhealthy interest in my person. I think PBS can testify that. Kurfürst (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All falsehoods. You're not worth it. Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comment from Polish aviation historian

"Luftflotte 4 raided several other targets, including airfields at Krosno, Moderowka, Sadkow and Maslow, and Heinkels of KG 4 flew accross the Carpathian mountains to make a long range attack on Lwow's Sknilow air base. Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavarly and troop concentrations at Wielun."

See: Jerzy B. Cynk. The Polish Air Force at War. The official history 1939-1943. Kurfürst (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Hohum (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its blatantly obvious: we have now three seperate sources: one German (Preußen etc), one British (Smith) and surprise surprise, one Polish (Cynk) all stating the same, that Wielun was a tactical support mission against Polish cavarly units. So what does edits based on commie books from 1960s and modern ultra nationalist websites have to the in the article about Strategic bombing I wonder.. Kurfürst (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The only Wielun reference I see in this article is "Dr Tadeusz Grabarczyk, Historical Institute at University of Lodz", is that a commie book from the 60s or an ultra national website?

However, we seem to be lacking a section on the context of what defined strategic bombing in WWII. My understanding that it is: attacks on the economy, industry, supplies, transport infrastructure, communications infrastructure. But not against military units, including warships. See Strategic_bombing, especially Strategic_bombing#World_War_II. It can be argued that terror bombing can be a subset of strategic bombing, intended to break will, or that "dehousing", or killing civilians is as well - since less workers strains an economy.

I don't have good sources regarding Wielun, so I'll defer my own judgement on it.

Actually the source is a web article by Sylwia Słomińska. She seems to be a journalist, google search reveals the same article by her was published in various on line newspapers. The addition 'site by Dr Tadeusz Grabarczyk, Historical Institute at University of Lodz' only seems to be weasel wording in the reference, a claim both irrelevant and impossible to confirm. The web page bibliography cites an 1979 Polish atlas, and Bojarska B., Zniszczenie miasta Wielunia w dniu 1 września 1939 r., „Przegląd Zachodni” 1962, nr 2., amongst some publications in newspapers/magazines from the early 2000s. Indeed the article would require what strategic bombing is afterall, but I generally agree with your definition of it. Kurfürst (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop whining about the Wielun, even the German TV thinks it's probably a war crime, and calls it Bombenterror auf Polen http://web.archive.org/web/20070312051606/http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/10/0,1872,2185322,00.html Are they also commies, anti-german, Polish nationalists and all that? Loosmark (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"ven the German TV" :)))) Kurfürst (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this link say that the site is Dr Tadeusz Grabarczyk's?

Loosmark, while the bombing of Wielun might be a war crime, another issue is whether it belongs in an article about strategic bombing. Hohum (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article written by Sylwia Słomińska - whoever she is - she based it on sources from commie sources in the sixties, and it contradicts works of modern day Polish, British and German historians. It seems to me a pretty straightforward case to me. Kurfürst (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

article by Joachim Trenkner http://tygodnik.onet.pl/35,0,14103,wielun__czwarta_czterdziesci,artykul.html Loosmark (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we include the bombing of Caen?

I am wondering, whether the RAF bombings in the Battle for Caen should be included in the article. During British operations to take the city, 942 RAF bombers got close to razing the city to ground. 35,000 made homeless, very nice pictures of the medieval cathedral and university being destroyed. There were ca 2000 civillan deaths in the first two days. Anthony Beavor also had some comments on the event but a few days ago. Kurfürst (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood? This is a very well documented bombing of German military positions in support of a ground attack, so it doesn't appear to fit the criteria of strategic bombing. Hohum (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, this seems to be a tactical bombing, however sad the consequences were from Caen's POV. Kurfürst (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably an "operational level" bombing, to split hairs. Hohum (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was tactical bombing by a strategic bomber force (temporary resigned to this task), and unlike German cities the centre was no the target. --PBS (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

PBS is right, it was direct ground assault, so it's tactical. Anyone read the book D-Day bombers? 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, operational bombing concentrates on the denying the enemy to deploy its military forces or to supply them, disrupt his C&C. Its distinctly between strategic and tactical level, a bit of a mix of both worlds. Roads, bridges, field supply depots, HQs, railways being trashed - an indirect support of military operations. Kurfürst (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like another ploy to blame the Allies for killing innocent civilians. Caen was a tactical use of air power, not strategic.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an analogue to Wielun, too. Kurfürst (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note well I am only discussing the sources being disputed and the improvement of this article. I will not address, never mention or ever make any comments regarding an editor of this page. My agenda is the discussion of reliable sources and article improvement--Woogie10w (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Would you please comment on revised, extended Poland section (a few sections above in the talk page)? Kurfürst (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the definition of operational bombing (someone - write a page on this?). Discussion about Wielun should be about the circumstances of, and sources for; Wielun. Hohum (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Allied bombing of Germany

I am surprised we have no article on Allied bombing of Germany (it is currently just a redirect to Bombing of Berlin in World War II. Perhaps some material from this article could be split to create a new article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

True. Perhaps a starting point would be doing that, with brief descriptions of major episodes linking to each individual detailed page. However, what more is that doing than this page already does, other than duplicate a part of it? Just playing devils advocate. Hohum (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points Piotrus and Hohum.--Jacurek (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the redirect to point to this article. Decisions on whether to create a new article can now wait until this article becomes large enough to need to become a summary article --PBS (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just see an inverse article on this subject Defense of the Reich. --PBS (talk)

Reference cleanup

Somebody want to clean up these references?

• Smith, J. Richard and Creek, Eddie J. (2004). Kampflieger. Vol. 2.: Bombers of the Luftwaffe July 1940 - December 1941. Classic Publications. ISBN 978-1903223420
• Smith, J. Richard and Creek, Eddie J. (2004). Kampflieger. Vol. 2.: Bombers of the Luftwaffe July 1940 - December 1941. Classic Publications. ISBN 978-1903223437

I have volume 1 of this series and the ISBNs given here don't match any of those listed therein. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazon says : Volume one Volume 2 Kurfürst (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course Amazon is not always perfect, and whoever added them could be referring to a slightly different edition - i.e. Hard/soft cover etc. The references are of course, like the rest of the article - a mess, with a random mix of reference format and citation styles.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the reference matches my copy's ISBN. But which volumes are actually used as references? I don't recall any actual cites, but I didn't look that hard. I'm honestly not that worried about formatting issues unless somebody wants to spend the time to upgrade the article. Nigel, true enough in ordinary circumstances, but there is no hardback version of this series to cause such confusion, nor are there US vs. UK edition issues. Another problem is that there's no citation or link for Speidel. We need to provide such for readers to decide for themselves if they care to follow up. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Speidel: Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Speidel_references_orphaned. Hohum (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

introduction

the introduction is a joke. the germans never bombed like allied. the german bombings prepared their campaigns ( warsaw belgrad ) , bombing raids to kill civilian were rare. many of the allied raids had the primary target "killing civilians" and nothing else. please mention this in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.159.162 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Many German bombing attacks targeted civilians, so did many allied. The allied attacks eventually achieved a far larger scale due to the resources they had available. Hohum (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

doesnt madder, the german and the allied had different aims. the german primaly attacked military targets. that they bombed cities aswell doesnt madder. the allied bombed many cities with the primary target of killing civilians. thats a fact. mention please in the introduction that the allied tried to kill as many civilians as possible. if u really think the germans used their bombers in the same way like the allied you dont know enough about this topic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 July 2009

I await your insightful, well researched and encyclopaedic contributions along with their reliable citations. Hohum (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"bomber harris" himself said that the allied should kill as many german civilians as possible with their bomber force. even the word "revenge" was used. how much percent of the dropped bombs were droped over city without military targets ? for the germans maybe 5% for the allied 60% ? -- HROThomas (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the supporting scholarly references which justify the idea that the Nazis primarily bombed military targets while the Allies mainly bombed civilians, and not that the main difference was that of scale of capability, with both attacking civilian areas with impunity. Hohum (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not with impunity, the losses of airmen on both sides were high. -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

True, wrong turn of phrase. Hohum (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

u can wait for long. its only the english articel. quality of english articles is well known. im not searching for a exact phrase. but back to the topic: the germans not even createt a strategic bomber force. nearly all german aircraft sortiers were to help the front or to defend the reich. only a real small percantage were attacks against cities which were not part of the front. and when they attacked cities it was rare that the target were only civilians. allied were "sitting" on the isle for 4 years and the fighting took place in russia, so they bombed german cities . btw u not even need a source for the claim " primarily bombed military targets while the Allies mainly bombed civilians " because if u can maths u will see were most of the german bombs were dropped: on the front. typical biased anglo view of the strategic bombing, if u really think the bombing was no planned mass murdering of german civilians u are stupid or totally biased. a not biased introduction for "strategic bombing" has to include that the allied used it to kill as many civilians as possbile. but noooooo we mention 3 german bombing raids and not operation gomorrah were the english were proud to kill so many civilians. face it many bomber pilots were send to germany to kill civilians which were unimportant for the outcome of war. PLEASE read the english articel for the blitz, every second sentence shows that the primary targets were industrial and military important. PLEASE read this articel and than u can read the rotterdam blitz were u can read that it was a mistake and the german abortet the bombing mission but the pilots didnt recieve the message. and after this u read dozen of articles about bombing of german cities. if u are not stupid u can find complete different ways of bombing -- HROThomas (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's enough. This isn't a forum. It's for discussing ways to improve the article. You refuse to do anything of the sort. Blathering on about how biased the article is, and spouting incoherent, unsupported, uninformed, fringe drivel is a waste of everyone's time. I gave you more than enough opportunity to prove you weren't babbling, but I'll not be bothering to enable your behaviour by replying from now on. Hohum (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

iam sure u dont want to improve the introduction because u think it is good. i said enough facts ... . take the cited material from other articles.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing READ IT!!!
• quotation of "bomber harris" It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.
• another one : the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany
• "In 1942, the goals of the British attacks were defined: the primary goal was the so called "morale bombing", to weaken the will of the civil population to resist. Following this directive intensive bombing of highly populated city centers and working class quarters started"
• quotation from "area bombing directive" "ref the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood "
• there are dozen quotation which show that the target were primarily CIVILIANS

-- HROThomas (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While I don't endorse HROThomas' tone, he is correct. The primary target of Bomber Command efforts was civilian housing, to get at German morale. It was ineffective (contrary to claims of "devestating effect").

That aside, the intro isn't too bad. I did delete some I found off-point, & added a touch on the PW. PW really doesn't deserve much; the effort only began in earnest in mid-'44, after the fall of Saipan, & the scale compared to Europe was pretty small (100s of B-29s, v 1000s of Lancs & B-24s). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In need of a proper introduction.

I have trimmed the introduction significantly, as the information within it was out of place, as well as tainted with some bias. A strategic bombing article introduction need not include a bulk of information on the bombing of Poland and Warsaw, and to a lesser extent The Blitz, when the majority of the bombing campaign was against the British Isles and the German heartlands.

I suggest a full introduction re-write is in order.

The prior version hardly qualifies as a scholarly or encyclopedic quality entry.

CanadianPhaedrus (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the main article, so the passages, which included references - and reflected the contents of the start of the article, should be there. Although there wasn't enough about later developments after attacks on Poland. i.e. the lead was too short. for the size of article, the lead should be at least a couple of paragraphs. You have just made it ridiculously short, and now it doesn't even contain the initial information. I have reverted your edit. Hohum (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

omg Hohum do u not understand that the introduction is a joke for a neutral Encyclopedia? the english wiki is so ridiculous sometimes. btw the japenese bombed shanghai with thousands of deaths before 39 i guess. but i am sure u HOHUM have a proper explanation why in the introduction the german raids of 39 and 40 are mentioned but not the japenese of 38 and 39 ? -- HROThomas (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

HROThomas would you mind changing your confrontational attitude a bit? If you have suggestions for improving the article please state them without ridiculing other editors. Loosmark (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

<sigh, counts to ten> The problem with the lead isn't the inclusion of attacks on Polish cities or the Blitz, they are notable events and are both in the main article. It is the lack of coverage of what is in the rest of the article, i.e. the development of strategic bombing, and the attacks on and by other nations. Hohum (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Bombing was also used as a psychological weapon to try and break the enemy's will to fight. This characterized Germany's Blitz campaign against the United Kingdom as well as the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany" , this is not even true. the german major targets were to destroy the raf and industrial power to the germans can lunch SEALION. breaking the will was a side effect. luftwaffe bombed industrie and military, if the will of the british were primary than the would have attacked the well populated areas like the british did when they attack german cities. THIS STATEMENT NOT CHARACTERIZED the german blitz. such error in an introduction .... -- HROThomas (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Blitz was between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941. Sealion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September, 1940. Hohum (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

and? major target was destroying the RAF and the military production. READ THE !!!area bombing directive!!! there u can find that the english target was !!!unrestricted!!! bombing of highly populated cities. -- HROThomas (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"the german major targets were to destroy the raf and industrial power to the germans can lunch SEALION" Hohum (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

lol, game over? please educate yourself and after this please change this introduction which is written by noobs.. -- HROThomas (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas please try to avoid these rather silly internet remarks such as "noobs", it is really quite pathetic. I also think you have oversimplified the methods used by both the RAF and the Luftwaffe in their respective strategic bombing campaigns.

Why then Thomas did the Luftwaffe change targets away from industrial and RAF targets and engage in the bombing of London? The fact is, is that the Luftwaffe did engage in "terror bombing" and did attack well populated areas i.e. their raids on London and Liverpool - if they attacked purely military and industrial targets so many civillians would have not have been killed nor would there still be bombed out ruins in city centres away from the "industrial and military targets". However i do not condem their actions. Likewise the British engaged in area bombing to destroy targets, which had the knock on effect of inflicting losses to the civillian population. At any rate both sides were engaged in total war and bombing raids were a part of that - the reduction of the civillian worker labour force in being able to produce arms etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discusion. Nobody said the germans never bombed civilian targets. i only said the germans never did it in the same way like the british . and IT IS A !!FACT!! that the german aimed NOT on civilians in LONDON. even the coventry raid aimed !NOT! on civilian. the area bombing directive shows that the british had the order for unrestricted mass murdering of german civilians. everyone know this, but here all have problems to face this.... . Everyone of u have read the area bombing directive? or the dehousing papers ? -- HROThomas (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is the claim you seem to be supporting, that the Luftwaffe only targeted military or industrial targets to support Sealion; a claim that cannot be 100% supported when we look at the evidence. The evidence shows the Germans hit civilian targets that brought about quite a death toll (of course dwarfed by the losses suffered by the German and Japanese civilians). Am not condemning the Luftwaffe for these actions as all sides undertook them as part of total war. However if you continue to insist the Germans did not aim at civilian targets, but only military and industrial ones, explain the bombing of London, Liverpool and Coventry city centres; the bombing of water and gas works, train stations, churches etc and the attacks on small towns and villages surrounding these major cities that are not major industrial areas...

The fact that you are suggesting the Royal Air Force engaged in mass murder highlights that you have a point of view to push; the rationale behind area bombing was to ensure the factory – after pin point bombing failed - was destroyed and to incapacate the workforce. In total war the line between civilian and combatant blurs...

FIRST read the discusion, i never said germans didnt aim civilian targets. SECOND hitting civilian targets and aiming on them are two different things. THIRD bombing high populated areas ( the highly populated are always the worker areas ) in hope that production decreases is mass murdering of civilians. when u really think u can win a war with killing all people how can help the opponent indirect or direct and this is no genocide than u are not clever enough. FOURTH quotation from your wiki about bombing of coventry "The raid was executed by 515 German bombers, two thirds from Luftflotte 3 and the rest from the pathfinders of Kampfgruppe 100. The attack, code-named Operation Mondscheinsonate (Moonlight Sonata), was intended to destroy Coventry's factories and industrial infrastructure". OMG even your!!! examples are attacks of germans against industrial targets.

• Operation Millenium
• Operation Gomorrah , read the table 10% were attacks on industrial targets rest aimed only civilians , killing 50000
• Battle of Berlin. THis quote is cool "This was the most effective raid on Berlin by the RAF of the war, causing extensive damage to the residential areas west of the centre, Tiergarten and Charlottenburg, Schöneberg and Spandau. Because of the dry weather conditions, several firestorms ignited"
• Bombing of Dresden , one of the biggest refugee place. thousands went there because the thought they will not bomb it.
• Bombing of Darmstadt , 12.000 in one raid aimed on the center and living districts "Das Zielgebiet des Angriff auf Darmstadt stellten im wesentlichen das dichtbesiedelte Stadtzentrum insbesondere die mittelalterliche Altstadt dar"
• Bombing of Kassel , 10.000 dead , there is a list of 20 bombings 2 times they aimed on Henschel

only some examples. and i repeat myself , read the area bombing directive , and u will see unrestricted killing campaign against civilians. winners make history and uneducated believe it -- HROThomas (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you have brought Dresden up, lets turn this discussion on its head - the RAF and USSAF went in with clear military targets; military instalations and lines of commucations facilities. Look at what happened? By your own admission then this act was not an act of "mass murder", as you have stated, because, like with the Luftwaffe, it doesnt matter if civvie targets are hit in the process only the fact that the intention was to hit military targets.

"FOURTH quotation from your wiki about bombing of coventry "The raid was executed by 515 German bombers, two thirds from Luftflotte 3 and the rest from the pathfinders of Kampfgruppe 100. The attack, code-named Operation Mondscheinsonate (Moonlight Sonata), was intended to destroy Coventry's factories and industrial infrastructure"." Now lets continue reading from the article shall we? "air-mines ... designed to hamper the Coventry fire brigade", "Coventry Cathedral ... set on fire" followed by further direct hits on said building, "were started in nearly every street in the city centre", "direct hit on the fire brigade headquarters", "the Germans had intended, the water mains were damaged by high explosives", "destroyed or damaged about 60,000 buildings over hundreds of hectares in the centre of Coventry", "Joseph Goebbels later used the term Coventriert ("Coventrated") when describing similar levels of destruction of other enemy towns", and "The use of high explosive bombs and air-mines (blockbuster bombs) coupled with thousands of incendiary bombs intended to set the city ablaze in a Firestorm." I will admit that most of the article unsourced, so i will not say the above is 100% accurate, however all of the above is purely ok because the Luftwaffe intended to hit industrial targets? Ok fair enough - just like Dresden then?

Alos please do not make attacks upon editors; history is not written by the winners - this is an unsubstaniated myth - the war ended over 60 years ago and plently of research has been made by historians of many nations to expand our knowledge of what happened on a pretty neutral basis. Also if you are attempting to suggest that i am uneducated on this subject, please dont as you have no idea who i am.

PS: "when u really think u can win a war with killing all people how can help the opponent indirect or direct and this is no genocide than u are not clever enough." I suggest you go read up the theory of total war, it is a key part of mass industrilsed warfare - the entire population is mobilsied to sustain the war effort; render the workforce unable to work and you hinder the ability to sustain the war effort. Apparently this had a very good effect on the average German worker and the numbers of people not turning up for work increased as the war progressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AND AGAIN i never said germans didnt bombed civilian targets i never said something like this, i never compared civilian casualties. british civilians were killed and germans too. thats not the point . the difference is that british planned to kill masses of german civilians they planned it and did it like SS troops killed russians. they aimed on german living districts hit them and killed the people inside . it was planned it was not side effect ... . and this happend hundred of times. germans did it too but never had complete campaigns for it and planned it this way.

i do not understand your qoutes. they bombed a city and caused damage thats not new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) your total war sentence is ridiculous. i know what total war is and i know whats genocide. and iam not attacking u but its stupid to think because there are problems with war production because the british killed workers and their family that this ok, THATS THE ARGUMENT OF THE WINNERS. next time we say that the SS killed so much russians is ok because this russians could not help the red army building trenches. complete same argument think about. and lol history is writte by winners. russians had school books for 50 years full of lies. 90% of the british and americans believe they won the war and didnt even noticed the eastern front. short my opinion for bombing cities. Bombing besieged cities must be done. Bombing cities and targeting industrie and military with area bombing ( civilian casualties ) is shit but war. Bombing highly populated areas only to bomb civilans , war crime, mass murder ( bombing of polish cities sometimes fall in this category , some blitz raids too ) . building one of the larges bomber forces ever with area bombing directive with the aim of creating fire storms, hmmm tell me. my arguments are clear i guess , the area bombing directive and the list of sortiers flown against german civilians too. please change the introduction from biasd to neutral.

PS to your Goering quote . he was a bad man who was proud that somemany civilians were killed and so much houses were destroyed. the same was it with the british leaders but they created a whole bomber force and wrote new directives to reach such destruction and they got awards ans statues for it. -- HROThomas (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact you have not engaged with the examples shown, nor taken on board how the coventry example destroys your contuined argument about how the Luftwaffe engaged targets highlights to me that you are just trolling. There is a difference between total war and genocide; the first is to hinder war production etc the latter is the systematic destruction of a race - no where did anyone claim every German should die, that is the difference between the bombing of cities and lineing people up agaisnt trenches and shooting them.

The fact that you persist with this myth that the winners write the history to me highlights your ignorance to the wealth of information out there. Who cares what the Soviets wrote during the Cold War - look at the work that has been wrote now because we have access to those archives.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

i engaged your example, i said aiming on civlians and hitting them is different to aiming on something else and hitting them. u didnt engaged my 100 examples for planned killing of civilians so u are maybe hust trolling.and i showed that the british worked in an other way than the luftwaffe ( sortiers flown against civilians, sortiers flown against factories) i showed it many times but u are not able to draw conclusion. and no there is no difference of killing civilians in cities with bombs and shooting russians which maybe can helpd the russians with bearing weapons or digging trenches, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. its murdering civilians with minimal effect FOR THE WIN ( for every german worker killed the brought 10 jews in the factory) . did u read the area bombing directive or dehousing papers ? -- HROThomas (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"i engaged your example, i said aiming on civlians and hitting them is different to aiming on something else and hitting them. u didnt engaged my 100 examples for planned killing of civilians so u are maybe hust trolling.and i showed that the british worked in an other way than the luftwaffe ( sortiers flown against civilians, sortiers flown against factories)"

Which for the thousandth time is not 100% accurate. You havent engaged the examples given you because they draw direct parallels between how the Germans operated and how the Western Allies operated (on a vaster scale). You have stated aiming at civillians and hitting them are two different things, by your own admission then you are absolving the RAF and the USAAF from the vast majority of their raids that aimed at military and industrial targets i.e. Dresden etc Thus the point of view you are pushing is inherently flawed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the vast majority of raids were not against military production. THATS WHAT I SAID SO OFTEN . the directive for the bombers were to bomb "build up areas and not industrial areas" , are u not able to read this??? the british commando himself SAID THIS its not my opinion its a well known fact. i ask u are u not able to read this? -- HROThomas (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Where they, or where they not for the vast majority of the time attacking major industrial centres with the two fold objective of destroying industry and driving the workforce away? Its called area bombardment and strategic bombing, as the latter article defines it a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating an enemy nation-state by destroying its economic ability.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

if u aim on civilians and kill civilians in huge masses its mass murder. if total war or not is complete irrelevant. shooting civilians in the head is shooting civilians in the head doesnt madder if total war or not. british tried to kill as much german civilians as possible with there bomber force, no other air force did so. the germans primarly tried to cripple production and military power of england an the british tried to cripple german people at all. if u want to get evidence than check how much percentage of german bombs where dropped to kill civilians . nearly all german bombs were dropped on the eastern front , nerly all british bombs were dropped over german cities. SIMPLE CONCLUSION german used their bombs to cripple enemies military and british used it to cripple enemies peoples. So easy math . if u want to say "its total war its ok" than do so, but mention it in the introduction " because it was total war , british startet mass murdering of german civilians".

• when the discusion startet i said the introduction is biasd because it mention german attacks on warsa ( besieged city ) but not mass murdering of british. thats biasd everyone knows this u are british u are biasd. iam not debatting about who killed more civilians etc, i only say the british used most of there bombers to kill civilians , i have evidence ( are bombing directive ) and u are only talking BLABLABLA because u are a british. ITS FACT that no other nation used so much percentage of their bombs to kill civilians. so the british bomber command worked an other way than the luftwaffe or red air force etc. i know u dont want to execpt that the british did mass murdering like germans i understand your biasd opinion, they told u on school all was nice it as total war. the total war argument is so lol are u sure u are studying history? lol total war only means the no one looks on ethnics, and for u its apology to do everything what u want. lol this argument incapacitates you from inteligent discusions... -- HROThomas (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas please cease with the insults - they do not support your case, you have no idea who i am, my mindset or my intelligence levels so stop with the guesses. My nationality has nothing to do with this either, i am a student of history and i attempt to take no sides when studying subjects.

You say i am being bais by pointing out your wrong and you conclusions are oversimpliefed, yet you dont seem to see how you are in fact being bais. You claim the British (what about the Americans?) conducted mass murder, i.e. they commited war crimes, and you are comparing them to the genocide (the term you used) carried out by the Germans on ethnic groups they wanted to erradicate from the planet; this was never the objective of the strategic bombing campaigns. Where do they state they wanted to rid the world of every single German? When we look at the casualties inflicted, sure yes they are high, but (if my maths are spot on) the highest range of dead only account for 2.7% of the pre-war population (the lowest range would be 1.2% of the German pre-war population).

You claim the Luftwaffe never targeted civillians but only targeted industrial and military objective over the UK however you seem to want to ignore the mountain of evidence that shows they bombed civillian targets (which you then claim is ok however in the reversal its mass murder when it comes to the British)

"nearly all german bombs were dropped on the eastern front ... SIMPLE CONCLUSION german used their bombs to cripple enemies military and british used it to cripple enemies peoples." A simple conclusion that comes from what? Just because they were dropped on a "front" doesnt mean they were dropped on military targets. British bombs were dropped on the "Western Front" and the Med, Middle East Front", your simple conclusion would then be they were dropped on military targets? As for the Eastern Front, what about the terror bombing of Warsaw, the eradication of Stalingrad etc? Not exactly military targets...

I never said Total War means you can ignore ethics, i didnt even say i agreed with it or not however if you like it or not the Second World War was a total war and strategic bombing is a part of that - reducing the opponents ability to wage war by destroying their industrial centres and driving their workforces from the area; something all sides engaged in. I am not being bais by recognising this fact, which you seem to not want to. The documents you keep banging on about support this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

your text is full of failures. here some quotations

• "you say german never targeted civilians" i admit already that they did, you are stupid or blind
• "bombing of stalingrad" this shows your knowledge about warfare is lol, bombing a besiedged city is normal in every war its not even a war crime. allied bombed thousands of french civilians to death, nobody talks about this. they bombed them because germans were in this cities so its "ok", thats war...
• "Mountain of evidence which show germans bombed civilians" WHO SAYS SOMETHING ELSE, you are stupid or not able to read. we dont talk about one bombing or two or three we talk about straight bombing campaign with strict aimes of killing civilians. stop counting civilians building destroyed by german. moronic...
• "Second World War was a total war and strategic bombing is a part of that" THAT IT WAS A TOTAL MAR MEANS NOT IT IS OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this words "total war" means nothing it only describes this warfare and not the ethnics behind, man how old are u ????? u throw this words and think they are a apology for bombing civilians.
• no other nation used such high percantage of their bombs to bomb cities, no one.
• i showed you official papers that british aimed on civilians, can u show me bombing directives of the germans showing the same? show me or shut up.
• no other nation used such high percantage of their bombs to bomb cities, no one.
• by the way, when the british used their bombs in africa for example , than yes they bombed military targets. what a stupid question??? -- HROThomas (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact you cannot go one reply with resorting to personal attacks shows your offensive attitute, trolling nature plus your comments show a very limited understanding of what happened.

""you say german never targeted civilians" i admit already that they did, you are stupid or blind"

This is what we call a strawman argument, you cannot defend the point thrown at you so you argue agaisnt something that wasnt said. If you read my full comment, i stated "You claim the Luftwaffe never targeted civillians but only targeted industrial and military objective over the UK" - which is what you keep claiming.

""bombing of stalingrad" this shows your knowledge about warfare is lol, bombing a besiedged city is normal in every war its not even a war crime. allied bombed thousands of french civilians to death, nobody talks about this. they bombed them because germans were in this cities so its "ok", thats war..."

Actually my knowledge of the eastern front isnt "laugh out loud". Commentors on the battle suggest that the luftwaffe bombing was rather counter-productive. Regardless of which the point was to highlight the Luftwaffe didnt soley target military targets on the eastern front.

"Mountain of evidence which show germans bombed civilians" WHO SAYS SOMETHING ELSE, you are stupid or not able to read. we dont talk about one bombing or two or three we talk about straight bombing campaign with strict aimes of killing civilians."

No we were not talking about campaigns aimed at killing civillians, because if you remember the Germans never wanted to do such over the UK - you said so yourself.

"stop counting civilians building destroyed by german. moronic..."

Why because they support the view you wont admit that over the UK the Germans did attack civllian targets and not soley military of industrial targets?

"this words "total war" means nothing it only describes this warfare and not the ethnics behind, man how old are u ????? u throw this words and think they are a apology for bombing civilians."

Old enough to know what it means, old enough to understand in war people die, old enough to understand in war ethics go out the window and old enough to understand for a mass industrial war to be won - unplesant things have to happen.

"no other nation used such high percantage of their bombs to bomb cities, no one."

Not a point that has even been touched on, so yet another strawman argument.

"by the way, when the british used their bombs in africa for example , than yes they bombed military targets. what a stupid question??? "

Now this is just funny. Should we talk about the Luftwaffe and Italian bombing of Malta? Such we talk about the Italian bombing of Hafia. Should we talk about the RAF bombing of the Italian mainland. The fact you seem to establish a theatre and how bombers were used to black and white answers is rather humerous.

Now if you can reply without using terms like "lol", "stupid", "moronic", and "you cant read" with a cohernet argument tagged on void of strawman argument i may well reply to you. It will also highlight that your just not another troll and you may just manage to prodcue a constructive conversation that can lead to decent changes being made.

ok iam out of the discusion u are so ridicoulous. u claim the germans did not only bomb military targets at the eastern front because they bombed stalingrad. than i tell u that u are moronic because stalingrad was a besiegded city with 100.000 solierds in and around. after i showed u that this argument is complete dumb . u answer "Commentors on the battle suggest that the luftwaffe bombing was rather counter-productive." lol u told me germans bombed civilians on the eastern front and i say it was a besieged city and then instead of admiting that u talked bullshit u say that commentors said is was counter-productiv?????????????? sooo ridiculous byebye biasboy. -- HROThomas (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think i can safely rest my case that you are simpley an uneducated troll :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

yes iam the uneducated troll, u thought germans bombed stalingrad to bomb civilians ^^ -- HROThomas (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things but first of all yes you are am glad we agree on something. The unproductive mass bombing of the entire city made the fighting for the ground troops 10 times harder. When the Luftwaffe was employed to destroy Stalingrad the German troops had only reached the outskirts iirc. the city was firebombed; was the entire city by this stage a massive miltiary base as it was latter in the battle? But here again highlights how bais you are; to destroy as much of the city as possible is perfectly fine because there is a military pressance - so that also means, by your own logic, that the bombing you are condeming so much is fine because of the presance of the Luftwaffe, flak guns and indutry... --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

what are u hobby historian talking about??? stalingrad and the area around were defended by 3 russian armies numbering about 250.000 soldiers. in the city were about 40.000 soldiers and militias and tank factories ^^. americans dropped more bombs on dorps with 30 germans inside. man u are so bad in history^^ -- HROThomas (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your quite amusing for a troll, i like the fact you are now focusing your attention on something this discussion never really talked about and to be honest was just a snide remark i sent your way. I really love the "hobby historian" comment, coming from someone who doesnt know what a well source article is and from the daft comments you have been throwing around here. Highlights you are quite simpley a troll.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

iam focusing on your missing knowledge. with the simple stalingrad example i showed that u know not enough about history. by the way u moron brought the stalingrad bombing because u wanted to compare it with RAF bombings of german cities. u wanted to compare the bombing of a besiegded city with soldiers inside with operation gomorrah ^^ -- HROThomas (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You should really look what a strawman argument is; at not point did i compare the bombing of stalingrad with the bombing of German cities. Should we contuine to focus on your "missing knowledge" and the inaccuries you seem insistant on being incorpated into the article?

And for the last time stop with the personal attacks, it doesnt make you look big or help get your point across - can you go one post without resorting to them?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

HROThomas, please stop being abusive. Hohum (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

to make myself clear; what is the problem ? how can we improve the article?

• the problem is the introduction, its bias. why? its bias because its highlights the german as unrestricted terrorbombers. and mentiones examples. the german were NOT the country with the most terrorbombing, they were not the country with a campaing for terrorboming and they were not the country who build a big force of bombers perfect for area bombing. after this the blitz is mentioned FIRST and than the "little" bombing campaign against germany.
• how to improve? maybe saying germans did it first ( in a neutral style ) ( iam not sure but i think the first bomber raid AIMING completly on civilians was a british bomber raid on berlin ) than the allied took this and developed it, and did an terror campaing against germany( area bombinb directive ). if u want to use the word unrestricted than use it twice for german bombing of warsaw and allied bombing of all german cities.
• other possiblity : describing whats strategic bombing without examples without timeline, the reader can read the article for bloody examples if he wants so.

-- HROThomas (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say the Allied bombing was little, in fact it says it built up to nuclear attacks, the complete opposite.

If you have something that says the first strategic bombing raid was by Britain, and targetted civilians, find a reference to support it. Read WP:V

The lead of an article is supposed to reflect the main contents. Read WP:LEAD. As I have already said, and tagged it as such; the lead doesn't adequately summarize the contents.Hohum (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

wait. important is not the scale. the ressources affect the scale. important is the word "unrestricted" , at the moment the introduction highlights the german bombings. -- HROThomas (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just expanded the lead section to make it more accurately summarize the main article. If informed opinion can further improve it, please do so. I don't think it says anything that isn't already properly sourced in the main article, but I'm not putting in-line references in the text until any tweaking is finished.Hohum (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead section is now in need of being shortened, and tightened up. It doesn't discuss the Pacific theater adequately (as compared to the European theater). Also: Does the opening section go too in depth? Isn't the detailed information contained therein better suited for the specific sections below? Is it possible that the lead section would be more focused in describing what the page is by simply using the first paragraph? Just my thoughts. What do you think? Etrangere (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The morale of this story is...

Given Etrangere appears determined to sanitize the bombing campaign, let me explain my intent. Since breaking morale was Britain's express aim (no matter how much bombing was done), IMO it is necessary to state morale was not broken; indeed, there was no measurable effect, despite increasing weight of bombing. I don't dispute it got heavier. I do dispute saying morale didn't break is OT, since it's expressly stated morale was the objective. I also think not mentioning the result, failure, leaves the reader inevitably wondering, "OK, so did they succeed or not?" Emphasis on the "devestation", IMO, is overblown, in the face of abject failure by BC &, IMO, criminally bad leadership from Harris.

I don't agree the lead needs trimming; the subject is nuanced, & as it is, it appears to me a fair overview. I do agree Pac ops coverage seems a bit thin, but (as noted) there's little more needing mention in an intro, in light of (comparatively) small scale & short duration. Thoughts on a few words explaining why? Or is PacOc geog clear enough? (I can picture someone asking why China or the Aleutians weren't used {or more used}.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. No matter how many three-piece suits were reduced to trousers and coat by the "devestation", we must acknowledge that the goal of morale decline was not achieved through bombing by any nation attempting it. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have come around to realize that my initial comment about the lead section needing to be trimmed was incorrect. It does serve to summarize the content of the article well. It should stand. I disagree with morale as used by TREKphiler. Perhaps rewording (within guidelines) is in order rather than simply repasting it in, over and over again. I agree with Binksternet that if it's going to be used, the morale effect on ALL nations should be notated rather than just whether or not German morale was affected. One other problem with saying that morale was not affected is the fact that lower in this article that is contradicted. By the way Trekphiler I'm not trying to "sanitize" anything. I'm trying to contribute the same as any other editor. I'm cleaning up grammar, and form and attempting to add proper context when possible. Is that a problem? After all - this page was listed on the Wiki "pages that need help." Suggestion: actually read the rest of the article. Etrangere (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly tricky to note in the lead that Britain didn't crack under the Blitz, nor Germany under far heavier attack - however, early in the war, a few small countries did probably surrender due to German bombing. With Japan it's complex and arguable whether nuclear bombing led to surrender, so it seems beyond the scope of the lead to say whether it did or didn't. Hohum (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

all good points Hohum. To some degree this is why initially I thought the lead section would be better served to omit discussion about the resulting effect on morale - which is debatable, and subject to varying opinions, and instead stick with a more data related statement about tonage. - leaving the effect on morale issue for later in the article. The introduction about the purpose of bombing being to affect morale can be agreed upon by all - but defining the result is less clear. It's subjective to a degree but I do understand your point. Is it possible we could just add to the end of the morale sentence (no measurable effect on morale) - "in Great Britain or Germany."  ?Etrangere (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge "sanitize" may not have been the best word... My objection is removing it, while leaving in comment about bombing being used as a psychological weapon. If we emphasise the "devestating" effect on industry (& I am far from convinced it was as effective as that suggests), while ignoring the lack of impact on morale, which is raised as an objective, we've unbalanced the coverage & left a false picture. It's that imbalance, & removing comment on the lack of effect creating the imbalance, I'm concerned with. I do wonder what the objection to my use of "morale" is; it's the usage adopted by BC, Portal, Churchill, & Garrett.

Did the nuclear bombing lead to Japan's surrender? Personally, I doubt it, since IMO it's qualitatively no different from the devestating firebombings. I also agree it's outside the scope of the lead to address it.

Did bombing have morale effects on some countries? Indubitably. The lead, however (IMO, at least), was focused on BC's efforts against Germany, & there, no measurable effect was achieved; nor did Britain make any effort to measure it, in fact. The countries affected (Poland, for instance) had ineffectual defensive measures, & no means to retaliate, which were crucial factors in sustaining public morale, as China found as early as '37. Both Germany & Britain did, which is why German morale (&, more importantly, government morale) was unaffected. If we can agree the BC campaign had no effect on Germany, & can agree to add that, I'm satisfied. (As to whether Garrett supports it, I'd say yes; he mainly focused on the BC efforts, & Hastings solely so.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:44 & 22:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There were measurable effects on morale, so I don't like the wording. UK government reports about the British publics reaction to being bombed variously said that it hardened morale, caused unease but not panic, and a variety of other effects. It didn't break the will of Britain or Germany to continue fighting though - this isn't POV, it's provable fact, and is a rather key point. Then again, so is the fact that strategic bombing did eventually significantly damage German industry and supply, which I previously included in the lead, but has since vanished. Hohum (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This has been my point. There were affects on morale, and there are many references to this. Which is why I kept removing the phrase. I agree it is not a pov that the will of Britain was not broken. I was working on your inclusion of strategic bombing affecting industry and had kept it in but it was removed by someone else. I think that is a most important part of discussing bombing during WWII.

I appreciate this discourse. To answer the query about the use of "morale"... I don't object to the use of the word in general. My concerns were/are - First: My initial hesitance at keeping morale - was that the idea of measuring morale is subjective. I didn't interpret the citations the same way as others have (obviously), and morale is not to be confused with will. Second: The way that the sentence is structured, it seems to suggest that "only" British bombing was ineffective at lowering morale, and that perhaps German bombing was more effective. I don't believe either to be true. Third: Later in this article, and in a variety of sources I've read that morale was affected so there is feasible contradiction. I can agree though that morale was not "measurably affected." How does one measure moral? Etrangere (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"There were measurable effects on morale" In Britain, by the British. Not in Germany by the British. I'm more than willing to accept British bombing hardened German resistance, too, if you prefer something like "no reduction in morale". Nor do I disagree bombing damaged German industry, but production stopped when the war ended, not before, so its effects aren't as clear cut as "devestating' suggests.

"measuring morale is subjective" Probably. Still, offering bombing as a psychological weapon & ignoring its ineffectiveness, as noted, is a bad idea. Moreover, BC's major objective for the war was to break German morale (however it's measured).

"perhaps German bombing was more effective" Noted. Perhaps, "Bombing by both sides proved not to have the psychological effect predicted [expected?]."?

"How does one measure moral?" I confess that's outside my expertise, but Garrett (who examined the issue) appears to think it was possible. And perhaps we're confusing "morale" with "will to fight" (which perhaps Winston et al. were, too, & which Garrett et al., including myself, have perpetuated). Certainly there's a difference between the public view & the govt's, & at bottom, BC had to break the German govt's will to fight, not the German public's; it achieved neither, & an argument over whether it even targeted the correct objective (govt v public will) is well outside the scope of the lead.

I do think we're clearer now before, so I'm encouraged. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, saying the Germans bombing & failing, with no mention of BC's vastly greater effort without success, just doesn't get it, so I added that. I also added a bit on PW; I've read somewhere at least half the $$ to MATTERHORN went to graft, but can't recall where. Somebody? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's coming along. I do think the wording is getting better. I have a dumb question: What is "graft?" I can't find a definition that makes sense to me but it might just be me... as used in the sentence ending - "as by enormous Chinese graft." Etrangere (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It went to bribes of officials, & doubtless to Chinese orgcrime. That's not a def you find in any respectable dictionary? Also, seeing you put in the weight of bombing, didn't you originally have a source? Offhand, I'd say it's in Hastings or Harris, but I don't have them in front of me. And I have to say, I think tagging the atomic bombing was over the top; that's not in dispute, unless you had trouble with the scale of firebombing, which really isn't, either. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... no - I haven't found that definition in any respectable dictionary that makes your passage easily interpreted. Also: I didn't put in the weight of bombing... I didn't have an original source because that's not my edit. I didn't target the atomic bombing - that also is not my edit though i did request a citation. Also: the scale of fire bombing is not my edit but I think citation is appropriate. can we get a definition of "graft" that is univesal or not? Etrangere (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

graft can be defined in this context with regard to bribery but it's simply not used in a universally accessible way in this sentence or this context in general - that is most readers will have little idea what the meaning is as used in this context. not personal Trekphiler.. Thanks. 07:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If use of "graft" is a matter of usage, I'll readily agree a better word might be preferred. (FWIW, I've only got a crummy computer dictionary & it shows graft =bribery &/or corruption.) I'm using it in the sense of "payoffs", which (IIRC) is the usage put on it in the original source (which I'm damned if I can recall...).

As for bombing weight & nukes, I do have to wonder why a cite is needed. These aren't controversial points, & AFAIK, only the potentially controversial really deserve fact tags. If it was a matter of numbers, I'd agree, but not simply "RAF vastly outbombed Luftwaffe"; that's something just about everybody knows, & I doubt too many would question. Ditto firebombing; there's slim doubt Japan's cities were in ruin from firebombing even before the Bomb, & it's really not a contested point. Have you got a particular concern? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I can relent about the citations. Would like to find a replacement for graft. Thanks. Etrangere (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This latest phrase is a straw man: "failed to put an end to German industrial production". It presents a ridiculous requirement in order to say it failed. German industrial production and supply was significantly affected by bombing - insignificantly in 1942, but more so in the following years. Perhaps not enough compared to the enormous effort put into strategic bombing, but it was significant. It also doesn't reflect and summarize the rest of the article. The lead section isn't for grandstanding before the rest of the article. Hohum (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw man? The bombing is described as "devestating", yet singularly failed to achieve both its assigned objectives. That scarcely leaves a fair picture. "significantly affected" is far less than "devestating" susggests. That needs addressing in the lead, if it's to be an overview. It certainly needs addressing if an overview is to be honest. As it is, the emphasis appears to be on how bad the Germans were, & how effective BC was. That's far from a true picture. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably one of the worst articles on wikipedia. Will search for a warning banner about its low quality. Long, confuse sentences (most of these probably from Germans translating to English). And some pearls, like "philosophical" distinction between behaviour and morale, references about stoicism, etc.. What's this crap ? And obviously for a first-time reader clearly too much emphasis on trying to bash "anglo-saxon" bias. Maybe only some brief reference should be made, as well to some bad allied practices Mpbb (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

German city table

There is a table "Conventional bombing damage to German cities in WWII" for which this graph is used as a source. But from what I can see the granularity of the chart is not the same as that of the table. The graph works on over 80%, 70-79%, ... under 50%. Yet the table that we have (taking just the top five numbers as examples: Berlin=33, Cologne=61, Dortmund=54, Dresden=59, Dusseldorf=65) had data to the nearest 1%. I suspect another source was used. Can anyone verify the data as it appears here? -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source:Arthur Travers Harris, Despatch on war operations, 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945, Volume 3 of Cass series --studies in air power, Routledge, 1995, ISBN 071464692X, 9780714646923 p. 35

Would someone like to check our figures and use this as a source? (I know! but I am busy on other things) -- PBS (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Only 1 correction needed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The percentages were all in the original source, at the base of each bar in the graph, but the new source seems fine too. Hohum (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotta have collateral

"Avoiding civilian casualties" is the excuse for not bombing Germany, & for Germany not bombing Britain. I suspect both were reticent more in the hope of avoiding retaliation, on "the bomber will always get through" thesis. Can this be substantiated? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

German light vessels

The article now claims attacks were made on "warships and light vessels" and cites Denis Richards as a source. As far as I can see Richards mentions only warships, and from a range of sources it's clear only warships were supposed to be attacked. What is meant by "light vessels"? A lightship acting as a lighthouse? Or small vessels found in harbours? Either way it's not supported by the source, so I'll remove it unless there are any objections. Tymestl (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The term usually refers to warships smaller than cruisers, & depending on the context could include destroyers, MGBs/MTBs (S-boats, in this case), submarine chasers (PC boats), or corvettes. Lightships or tugs are classified harbor craft, not warships. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are 4 other sources given for the attacks on the "3th and 4th". Read the next sentence.--Runner631 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Italicization

Is there some reason why the term Luftwaffe is in italics?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because it is a non-English word. However, I think it is in such widespread use in Emglish, that there is no need to italicise it. Hohum (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign word? Many Brits said "German Air Force" and even abbreviated it "GAF" during the war. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly true for contemporary reports by the RAF and the USAAF, but not common nowadays. Most books published in the last 40 years or so use Luftwaffe so I see no need to italicize it as it's in common use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Laziness doesn't excuse changing it. Being a foreign word, IMO, it should still be italicized. (I expect to be in a tiny minority, however.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Laziness excuses many things, in my experience ;-) But lemme look and see what the MOS says, if anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSTEXT says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English." (My emphasis). I think the vast majority of English speakers know what Luftwaffe is referring to. Hohum (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I respectfully disagree with the MOS. (It ain't the first time, & won't be the last. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

<=Is it italicized in books?

• No: Luftwaffe: the allied intelligence files
• Yes: The American way of war: a history of United States military strategy and policy
• No: The Devil's disciples: Hitler's inner circle
• No: An army at dawn: the war in North Africa, 1942-1943
• No: The Third Reich: a new history
• No: Luftwaffe Aces: German Combat Pilots of World War II
• No: Bodyguard of Lies: The Extraordinary True Story Behind D-Day
• No: Messerschmitts over Sicily: diary of a Luftwaffe fighter commander
• No: Hitler: 1936-45 : Nemesis
• No: The rise and fall of the Third Reich: a history of Nazi Germany
• No: The codebreakers: the story of secret writing
• No: Luftwaffe Field Divisions 1941-45
  • (except for names of specific Luftwaffe field units)
• No: Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War
• No: The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World
• No: The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944

Not a complete survey, but the trend is clear. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

missing stuff

Article seems to completely miss Soviet Union (bombing of Helsinki and Tallinn for example) and Italy that also conducted some strategic bombing, although on smaller scale then UK or USA.--Staberinde (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no mention of Allied bombings on Normandy, Royan, etc... in France. Saciperere (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article is wholly unsatisfactory in that it does not cover the breadth stated in the title. It really covers Germany, UK and U.S. bombing in Europe, with scant attention paid elsewhere. I think this article should be a brief overview containing one- or two-paragraph summaries of the various strategic bombing efforts, with the aim being that the reader will go the main article describing specific campaigns in more detail. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

effect of the bombing campaign

This is my edit (wishartjr]. Sorry for the spelling errors - i am portuguese and english, but live in Portugal.

The effects, although not crippling, were very important to undermine the military production of Nazi Germany. The weapons intended to be sent to the Eastern Front, in order to easy military operations of counter-attack, were denied by the destruction of the factories. This is all explained in the book "Why the Allies won", by Richard Overy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wishartjr (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's considerable debate on the effects of bombing, including on production. And attacking transport infrastructure, thereby inhibiting movement of fuel and (produced) weapons would have been less costly in casualties (on all sides) & more effective. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and most of the high-level German officers interviewed after the war said that it was the bombing campaign that was the single largest cause of their defeat. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...many of them also blamed Hitler for their own mistakes, so more neutral sources are needed ;) Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also been suggested the Germans told the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Based on Terraine's Right of the Line (at least), bombing effectiveness is very much in question, regardless of German claims. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It used to be questioned, but as I understand it the point that has been made in recent years, is German war production did rise (due chiefly to pre-war underutilisation), but compared to that of the Western Allies it did not rise as fast. However one interesting fact that was bough up during a debate in the House of Commons during the war and is quoted in the article dehousing memo "...The loss of production in the worst month of the Blitz was about equal to that due to the Easter holidays..." (A. V. Hill). Obviously the bombing in Germany was much worse than than in Britain, but it helps to puts the bombing into perspective with regards to loss of output. -- PBS (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a point made by some that production did not rise as much as it could due to moves to disperse production (even to the extent of building underground factories) and that the effort put into defence from bombers limited manpower and weaponry that could have been sent to the Eastern Front. (notwithstanding the poor use of the Luftwaffe troops that were sent to that Front) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one important aspect of the air war that is summed up in this image, it shows how those conducting the bombing saw the situation at the time, and should therefore be a rather important aspect of this article.

• Diagram showing the effects of strategic bombing on German morale, resistance, and countermeasures. In 1945, published 1947

I think we can use it here using this license:

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If I've interpreted the National Archives collection catalogue correctly[2], and I'm not an expert, that image wasn't released until 1974. Publication in the form of the heros and Villains exercise would be more recent than that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you are doing a correct interpretation, but I haven't had time to dig deeper. Please check the glossary (top menu) explaining the terms. It could simply mean that that year they desided that the item should be retained, i.e. they would keep storing it past 30 years instead of destroying it. Note that the original site states that it was published already in 1947.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Refs sequence out of synch

Refs numbering sequence appears to be awry for some reason. Not me. Communicat (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hastings usage

Hastings appears to be used as a corroborative source to the phrase attributed to the BBSU "Far from there being any evidence of a cumulative effect on (German) war production, it is evident that, as the (bombing) offensive progressed ... the effect on war production became progressively smaller (and) did not reach significant dimensions"

In the book cited, Hastings doesn't draw that conclusion - and says "In the last phase of the war, between October 1944 and May 1945, the Allied strategic-bomber forces played a dominant part in bringing the German economy to the point of collapse." (Bomber Command, p. 327)

In fact, the entire recently added section appears to be drawing one sided conclusions from elderly sources which have been investigated far more fully in more recent years by historians of note. (Hohum ^@) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you got it wrong. The Hastings citation (123) that you're complaining about refers in fact to "nearly half a million German civilians, their dwellings and possessions were destroyed,"[123] Read it again.

As regards "historians of note" whom you refer to: Why do you not source your observation and add content to relevant section (which was sadly neglected previously? Communicat (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Communicat (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Allied bombing of France and Italy

Needs to be mentioned. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Industrial capacity and production

See also the section above: #effect of the bombing campaign

The introduction of "Allied bombing of industrial cities significantly reduced German industrial capacity." in place "of had a limited effect on German industrial production", is misleading as it may have "significantly reduced German industrial capacity" it did not significantly reduced German industrial production, as pre-war capacity was underutilised. For example, just suppose that a factory producing armament widgets before the war was only used for one shift per-day, then by the simple expedient of doubling shifts and utilising the armament widget producing machines for twice a long each day it would roughly double production of widgets without any increase in industrial capacity. Altering a factory from none war essential production to producing weapons would increase military industrial capacity without any change in overall industrial capacity or production etc etc.

Something on this came up in Britain during a debate in Parliament during the war. A. V. Hill pointed out when the house was debating bombing Germany "The loss of production in the worst month of the Blitz was about equal to that due to the Easter holidays". In other words without any alteration in capacity the expedient of cancelling Easter would negate the loss of production caused in the most effective month of bombing by the Germans. Presumably there was loss of industrial capacity by the German bombing, but its effect on production was minimal.

So don't think that this edit changing

• Nevertheless, RAF Bomber Command had a limited effect on German industrial production, and was no more successful at breaking Germany's will to fight than the Luftwaffe was at breaking Britain's.

to

• The Allied bombing of industrial cities significantly reduced German industrial capacity.

improves the article as both statements are true and the difference between production and capacity needs to be explained.

Also it is not clear to me why the clause "and was no more successful at breaking Germany's will to fight than the Luftwaffe was at breaking Britain's" was removed.

--PBS (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

German production lost nearly one-third of production directly or indirectly owing to the bombing. The old line that production increased = failure of the bombing offensive is what is misleading. Given the German resurgence under Speer, which only realised the capacity they had in the firs place, it is not surprising that production peaked. It much easier to quantify results by examining how much the Germans recorded lost, plus actual production. Then you get cause and effect. It was one-third according to Speer and Buckley.

As for RAF BC, this is not true. See Impact of Allied aerial offensive in the DOR article. That is why it was removed, it doesn't deal in detail with any of it, other than to make some generalisation that is way off.

Industrial capacity and production are to all intents and purposes, the same thing. The Capaicty to produce weapons is reduced when you churn up rail networks, so that the materials can't reach the factories. If I remember rightly, the Dortmund-Hamm (I think it was Hamm) line was destroyed by November 1944 and could not be repaired until 1947. Dapi89 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I might have preempted any discourse by more inclusive changes. I think they will be more agreeable. Dapi89 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Production and capacity are not the same thing. If they were then German war production would not have peaked as late in the war as it did. You say as much when you write "Given the German resurgence under Speer, which only realised the capacity they had in the firs place, it is not surprising that production peaked." -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are and no I don't. You've taken what I said out of context. You can only produce as much as you have capacity for - as I said. That capacity/production increases and falls depending on the effectiveness of attacks and productive method - as I said. The amount of capacity determines production - as I said. What I didn't say was; German production was at capacity since 1933, it was just siphoned off to non-war related means, and not geared to military means. It was only when this was reversed by Speer did the Germans reach capacity in the military field. All Speer did was to realise the MILITARY potential, not OVERALL potential of what was already there. So there was an increase in military capacity, which = an increase in production.

Bottom line is; if you are denied the capacity (factories/comms/material) to produce, then your production and capacity is reduced. It is silly to try and make a distinction under the circumstances. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is; if you are denied the capacity (factories/comms/material) to produce, then your production and capacity is reduced. This is not correct. The Capacity utilization is important. You can compensate reduced capacity relativly easy if your Capacity utilization isnt so high. Blablaaa (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, they aren't. The U.S. auto industry right now has the capacity to produce in excess of 15 million cars a year. It's not doing that, because they couldn't sell that many in Lee Iacocca's dreams. Production is not equal to capacity. QED. And substituting "capacity" for "production" is not only misleading, it's false. Bombing had extremely limited impact on capacity. In fact, the Germans repeatedly demonstrated survival of capacity, with factories resuming production shortly after attacks, with little or no repair, & even maintained production in damaged factories... Production = capacity? Not a chance. AFAI can tell, bombing had the most impact on production, & almost none on capacity (even in Japan, BTW), thanks in part to dispersal. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be talking at cross purposes, and sometimes contradicting even yourselves. Capacity is the maximimum output an industry is capable of, production is the amount it is actually producing. Capacity can be reduced without affecting production, until capacity falls under the production number required.

However, we should be reflecting what the sources actually say, not synthesising them. (Hohum ^@) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That was my point at the start of this thread "The introduction of "Allied bombing of industrial cities significantly reduced German industrial capacity." in place "of had a limited effect on German industrial production"", The sources are/were in the text instead of substituting one sentence for the other (as was done) just include both with sources. -- PBS (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are. German military industry was always operating at 100%. In 1942 it was given more muscle at others expense; + capacity = increase in production. Had the Germans been operating at 50% of military potential before hand then you have had a point. They weren't. QED Trekphiler, 'yes chance'. And the notion Allied bombing had limited effect on capacity is completely false. The communications networks in the Ruhr + damage to RM mines was so bad the factories did not receive the materials they needed to start production. And I have sources. So capacity is reduced, and so is and production (obviously). And Hohum, no. I could quite easily use the word capacity and or production to describe the restrictions imposed on production centres in the face of bombing. These simplistic responses are wrong, the two are so closely linked that, as I said, Industrial capacity and production are to all intents and purposes, the same thing. No contradictions. Sources will follow if need be. There is some good stuff in Hall, R. Cargill. Case Studies In Strategic Bombardment. Air Force History and Museums Program 1998. ISBN 0-16-049781-7 Dapi89 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn you said elsepage (Blitzkrieg?) that German military production was operating well under capacity in the early years. (Hohum ^@) 17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The military industry was not, the overall economy was. The military sectors did the maximum they could with what they were given. More resources from non essential (and non military) sectors increased military production (after a lot of capacity/factory building - underground). It was the economic priorities that were lacking. This enormous effort managed to push military capacity up. Hence it is quite correct to say that the German military industry always operated to its fullest, but at the same time criticise the leadership for not stripping other areas for the sake of the military to push these limits even further much earlier. Dapi89 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

dapi: "So capacity is reduced, and so is and production (obviously)." this is not necessarily correct. This are 2 different things.... I also would avoid to take single events as examples to describe the effects. Overall numbers are hard facts.... Single examples of a factory somewhere in germany are window dressing, i think. dapi: "German military industry was always operating at 100%" ---> impossible. Blablaaa (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

this is from the article: "Until late in the war, industry had not been geared for war and German factory workers only worked a single shift. (Incredibly, German apprenticeships for aircraft electrical fitters still lasted four years at the war's end.)", this heavly disputes your point. Blablaaa (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bla', you are not seeing the subtleties in the English language. Forgive the crude example; a factory produces 10,000 Ju 87s a day. It gets wiped out. You don't say, "damn, we've lost 10,000 per day production. But hey, the foundations of the factory are still there, so our capacity remains the same". It doesn't work for me. Dapi89 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is possible that i misunderstand the words. But iam not sure if i misunderstood them. Anyways you are correct with your concern regarding my ability to follow the discussion perfectly. Blablaaa (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"+ capacity = increase in production" And I don't believe I ever disagreed with that proposition. However, production is extremely flexible within the existing capacity, which was true in Germany, & which is what I said. "German military industry was always operating at 100%." No, it wasn't, because "military industry" is part of the total productive capacity of Germany, which as late as 1942 was stll producing civilian goods. Clearly, the full available capacity (i.e., 100%) was not turned over to military output (production). Which also puts paid to your "capacity =production" argument, doesn't it? "So capacity is reduced, and so is and production (obviously)" Probably, but not necessarily. This doesn't take account of labor flexibility (more shifts) or increased output elsewhere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dapi, I was under the impression German military industrial production was initially lower than capacity for the simple reason that they weren't operating factories 24hr, using shifts, not so much because of lack of factories. Also, they didn't even press women into work? (Hohum ^@) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pointed out in many sources that unlike Britain Germany did not conscript women into production, but something I didn't know but read recently, (I think it was in Max Hastings' Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45) was that at the end of the European war the Germans still had 1.5 million working as domestic servants. The Germans -- or the Americans (they never had to) -- never mobilised their economy in the way that the British did. "So capacity is reduced, and so is and production (obviously)." I don't think it is obvious, as it depends on a number of factors: The utilisation of physical capital, the efficiency of the utilisation, and the ability to bypass, replace or repair damaged infrastructure.

For example one trick that can boot numbers in the short-term, is to use infrastructure that would usually be used in the long-term reinvestment cycle for immediate war production, the economic equivalent of eating the seed corn. This was a problem that Britiain suffered from for more than a decade after both world wars, particularly in the heavy industries and transportation sectors of the economy.

If the German economy had been on an efficient total war footing from the start of the war then yes there would have been a close correlation between capacity and production, but the fact that the Germans were producing record levels of materiel in late 44 early 45 despite the Allied Bomber Commands best efforts, suggests that capacity and production were not that tightly tied together. Which is why I think that both points should be made. -- PBS (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got things wrong. Richard Overy busted that myth about the lack of German women in the workforce in his article Guns or Butter: Living Standards, Finance and Labour in German 1939–42, reprinted in War and Economy in the Third Reich. On p. 312 he quotes the percentage of women in the workforce in Germany in 1939 as 37.3% and for Britain 26.4%. In 1940 it's 41.4% and 29.8% respectively. In 1941 it's 42.6% and 33.2% respectively. In 1942 it's 46.0% and 34.8% respectively. In 1943 it's 48.8% and 36.4% respectively. In 1944 it's 51.0% and 36.2% respectively. Earlier work like the USSBS, Klein, Milward, etc. focused on the change between the prewar levels of female employment and the wartime ones, but they didn't appreciate that there were significantly more women employed in Germany before the war than was the case in the UK. In fact the Germans had a severe labor shortage in the late '30s and women were used to make up some of the difference, despite the Party's doctrine of Kinder, Kirche, und Küche (children, church, and kitchen).

Overy believes that the problems in 39 to mid-41 with weapons outputs, etc. were not because the Germans weren't mobilized, but rather because they were struggling to finish building a lot of the basic industries started before the war, they had problems incorporating the conquered areas of Europe into their economy and lots of internal political confusion over priorities, resources and jurisdictions. The second stage ran from mid-41 to mid-44 and was the result of extensive efforts, under Fritz Todt, not that self-important, and lying, memoirist Speer, to rationalize and simplify the economy through administrative reforms and centralization of asset and labour resources. The last stage, from mid-44 to the end, saw them focus on producing the most essential and easily produced equipment, making weapons rather than spare parts and repairing as much as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

He most certainly did. Had I had the wit, or room in the grey mush to retain that level of detail, I could have made that point earlier! Hence I am correct (or near enough) to say that the Germans operated as close to their potential as possible throughout the war - taking into account resources given at one time or another but also that German industry had higher potential. Thanks for clarifying those lack of economic priorities. A much more thorough and concise explanation, thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful, I wouldn't say that the Germans operated at the full potential during the first stage. The main problem was that the Germans had a craft mentality, not a mass production one and many industrialists (and workers) resisted implementation of mass production techniques like the assembly line, use of unskilled workers, etc. In fact the Nazi Party doctrine was against dehumanizing assembly line-type techniques prewar, but they were pragmatic about it, just like with female labor. Many industrialists were not willing to invest in new or greater capacity for fear of being stuck with it postwar; that included physical plant as well as new employees, especially unskilled ones, who were seen as a threat by the older workers who were used to hand-fitting parts, etc. and were perfectly willing to get things just so. This last is one reason why many factories did not stand up a second shift until forced to do so. So, I'd say that the German war economy was mobilized during that period, but it was done very inefficiently as various groups resisted the necessary changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

German industry was doing relatively OK until the surrender (except for the transportation of coal to the factories being disrupted), it was after the surrender that the German industrial economy itself was really "bombed", and the effect spilled over into the rest of europe.

• THE UNDEFEATED
• Cost of Defeat
• Pas de Pagaille!

You should focus more on how the bombing of the transportation network influenced the economy during the later stages of the war, most factories had their own power-plants and were dependent on transport of coal from the Ruhr and from Silesia to them. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Overy's War and economy in the Third Reich, mentioned above, Chapter 9: Guns or Butter: Living Standards, Finance and Labour in Germany 1939–42 - (p. 305 in this edition - regarding women in work). Very interesting and thorough - even though it's not a full preview.

However, this book is 1995 vintage, and Armageddon by Hastings is 2005 - and he seems to indicated the opposite again. How do we square this? (Hohum ^@) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy, Hastings is a journalist, not an economic historian, and he's using the older, discredited explanation because it's far more widely known. You can also reference Tooze, Wages of Destruction; Harrison, the Economics of World War 2; Aly, Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War and the Nazi Welfare State as well as the two parts of Volume 5 of Germany and the Second World War, the semi-official history. Few of these guys agree on everything, but it's really eye-opening to see everything that was in play during this period and how simplistic the older explanation really was. Especially if you can wade through the 1000 pages apiece of each part of Volume 5. But to be fair some of the points that I've made should be summarized in a note to show that there's a fair amount of disagreement over the German war economy, although most of it is from older scholarship that keeps getting repeated. Otherwise edit wars are likely as people will persist in putting in what they know to be true, even if it's outdated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Hohum ^@) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally right. I have the copy now - found it. To User:Stor stark7; no way pal. Journalism has no place here because it always wrong, even when it manages to get a few facts right. Overy is THE economic - air power historian worthy of mention. I have Tooze as well, his stuff is excellent. I guess you'd expect that from an Ec' hist' from the big C. Dapi89 (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Overy is also a historian who still ( in the late 90's) published debunked soviet propagandamyths in his books about eastern front. Be carefull with hyping him. Regarding the women rate. People should note, that Germany had one of the biggest armies compared to their population, this means automaticly that they had to compensate this with higher rate of women. This does not mean german did mobilize the industry stronger than others. They simply compensate the million missing men with womens. In my opinion there is not much logic to compare this with GB or USA who had a far lower rate of soldiers. Perfect example for statistics which look much different with background informations.Blablaaa (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Overy's book on the Eastern Front isn't worth much, I'll agree, but that has nothing to do with his status as an economic historian. And your argument above is meaningless. No nation "has" to do anything. The Germans could have compensated for the loss of workers by further mechanizing their production, drafting more foreign and slave workers, etc. They didn't "have" to further mobilize women at all. On a related note the Soviets were able to transfer much of their prewar agricultural and industrial labor into the military because they could rely on Lend-Lease to provide food, raw materials and industrial goods like locomotives, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If Overy is right, then there is a real problem with explaining any significant effect of the bombing campaign and capacity, as his figures implies that the bombing campaign was not successful for most of the war, doubly so if one considers production and capacity to be highly correlated. -- PBS (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Until '44 I that that is true. As far as I can tell, the bombing campaign wasn't very effective in knocking down German production until then, with rare exceptions like Hamburg. It had other effects before then such as boosting British morale and harming German morale, much less so for the latter, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since more tonnage was dropped from mid 1944 to the end of the war, than all the time before that, after gaining air superiority, and with vastly improved comparative accuracy, it's not suprising that it could be more effective by the end, surely? (Hohum ^@) 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel. I only explained the higher german rate of women in the industry. Germany had the biggest army compared to their population, thats the direct reason for the high women percantage. Men were replaced with women. Not every job was in a factory where you could place a "slaveworker", the men were drafted into the wehrmacht and women replaced them. Regarding the topic: I raised my point some months before: What i know ( if iam wrong please correct me ) a big part of this "reduced production" were aircraft? Bur ironical the Wehrmacht was never short of aircraft, correct? Blablaaa (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that the Germans had the biggest army compared to their population; I suspect that honor belongs to the Soviets, but I haven't looked to confirm it one way or another. And women could step into many male jobs, but not all. I'm fairly certain that there weren't a whole lot of female coal miners, steel workers, etc., but a slave or foreign worker could easily be used. And I'm not sure that the production of aircraft was the most reduced by the Allied bombing effort; I haven't done any detailed reading on this topic in 3-4 years. I think that trying to determine the most badly effected sector of the economy isn't really relevant to this article. The USSBS probably has general figures that could be easily used and referenced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If the most badly effected sector was a sector which produced more goods than needed then it would become relevant. But thats OR . THe last time when i read this article i missed a good analyses regarding the cost effectiness. Reducing german producation by XX% sounds meaningless without talking about the invested resources to achieve this. Blablaaa (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"If Overy is right, then there is a real problem with explaining any significant effect of the bombing campaign and capacity, as his figures implies that the bombing campaign was not successful for most of the war, doubly so if one considers production and capacity to be highly correlated." AFAIK, there were trivial impacts on German morale (& the Brits had no way of measuring them, nor made any effort to do so anyhow) & small effect on Brit morale. The most direct effect was actually on the survival of Winston's government: by being able to demonstrate HMG was hitting back, he undercut domestic opposition. (This effect traces back to Nanking 1937.) There's also a grand strategic effect, in being able to tell the Sovs, "Look!" The biggest impact, IMO, was operational: the massive losses to little gain of manpower which could have improved the performance of the Army, in particular after 6/6/44, when there was a fair crisis. (Of course, that leaves unexplained why there were units from Normandie being disbanded, when the Army evidently had whole untouched divisions at home...) I also think the impact on German warmaking potential is overblown; not trivial, but way overstated. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to www.truth-hertz.net

Some time ago I provided an external link to the site www.truth-hertz, which was almost immediately removed by Binksternet who sent this message to my user page: "Please do not add non-neutral material such as links to essays at" www.truth-hertz.net "to Wikipedia articles, as you did to World War II and Strategic bombing during World War II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. " Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The "essays" to which Binksternet refers are in fact seven or eight downloadable CHAPTERS from the non-fiction book Between the Lies (2nd edition, London:2007), which include several hundred primary and secondary sources, footnotes and extensive bibliography. The book, which remedies some prevailing historical myths about WW2, was published by a reputable academic publisher. So it was presumably subjected to academic peer review prior to publication. I doubt if Binksternet actually took the trouble to read those chapters, the appropriateness of which might be a subject for discussion instead of arbitrary deletion. Wiki's rule is that external linking to a website is acceptable if and when the site provides "significant and reliable additional information on an article's topic", and certainly the link to www.truth-hertz.net meets that requirement. As for allegedly violating neutrality, I think that's a matter of Binksternet's own less than neutral personal point of view. As I understand it, Wiki's definition of neutrality does not mean the absence of a point of view, but rather a judicious and unbiased mix of sources cited. Between the Lies seems to do that rather well, but I could be wrong. Nobody's perfect. Communicat (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be referring to this edit of mine three months ago, a removal of your book link that was then countered by you 2½ weeks later here, without the web URL, soon to be removed once again, this time by Edward321 in this edit unaccompanied by an edit summary. Your book is published by Gardners Books in the UK, a firm which caters to those who wish to publish their own books. The link, http://www.truth-hertz.net/part1.html, shows a wildly frothing fringe website, and looked to me like it crossed the line into WP:FRINGE. Stan Winer does not strike me as an author that is useful to this article, as he firmly takes a fringe stance. I stand by my deletion of the book and of the link. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice record keeping. But you got it wrong about publisher. Book was published by Southern University Press, London. I think we're digressing slightly, since we're supposed to be discussing a link to the free download version.

To answer the rest of Binksternet's comments: I think you should be referring to WP:EL and not WP:FRINGE as you've done. This discussion was meant to be about an external link, not an article, which is the function of WP:FRINGE. But since you've raised WP:FRINGE, I'm okay with broadening the discussion. Interestingly, WP:FRINGE with regard to real or perceived fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / other (call it what you like) positions, states: NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Why is it that content of the main WW2 article and all its related sub-articles deal exclusively with majority i.e. Western positions? (Strikes me as a major flaw in an otherwise excellent and high-level article). WP:FRINGE also rules that In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical ... prominence. And: ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. So, it follows that the existing WW2 article and sub-articles seem to have a serious NPOV problem in so far as they exclude all reference to "other"-type positions which deviate from those of dominant majority-position type editors. But to return to the question of reliable sources, WP:FRINGE further rules that "reliable sources on Wikipedia include ... books published by university presses (and)published by respected publishing houses. The download-linked book in question and under discussion is published by Southern Universities Press, London. Enough said.

By the way, it might be worth bearing in mind that today's "fringe" position can sometimes become tomorrow's majority position. Take the Battle of Britain for instance, which was once described by mainstream historians and others as "a heroic victory of the few against the many", when in fact, as latter-day historians have now established beyond doubt, RAF fighters at the time of that battle vastly outnumbered those available to the Luftwaffe (Sources available on request). It might also be worth bearing in mind that what is seen as a fringe / minority / "other"-type position in the West can also be a consensual mainstream / majority position outside of the Western cultural and political sphere of influence, i.e. in socialist countries. Communicat (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. If this is a credible book (which I doubt) it should be used as a source for the article. Adding it as an external link isn't a way to side-step the process of assessing the value and reliability of sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See above response to Binksternet Communicat (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable. Fringe.radek (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See above response to Binksternet Communicat (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.". It looks factually inaccurate compared to reliable sources, prove otherwise. (Hohum ^@) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Southern Universities Press. 12 Mcleod Court. Dulwich Common. London SE22 8NS, per the details in the front of the book, is the address of a flat, and not likely a publishing house for an accredited university, unless it can be shown otherwise. (Hohum ^@) 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the address of accredited university professor G Dench who's a director of SUP. My responses to other discussion comments are posted on the WW2 discussion page. Here they are repeated again again for your ease of reference:

::::: Far as I'm aware, Winer's book Between the Lies does not aspire to be a history, but rather an investigative work. As the site in question explains: "... Between the Lies, has exhumed a large body of evidence that somehow managed to escape the censors and the incinerators." Several hundred references to reliably published and impeccable sources, and an extensive bibliography are provided to support his thesis. But never mind all that for the moment. More noteworthy with regard to the editors' comments above is the dexterity with which they've managed to evade the cogent WP:FRINGE issues raised in my preceding post, which I don't have time to repeat again. Read them for yourself. The fact of the matter is that significant fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / theories do exist, and since their existence is an indisputable fact, it should as a matter of NPOV be stated in the WW2 article or sub-articles. Apart from Winer's effort, there are many other reliable, well-researched books etc about WW2 that deviate radically from the lame, officially endorsed accounts of grand strategy and of what happened and why. (Titles and authors available on request, in the unlikely event that you're interested). I suspect that the reason why editors such as yourselves prefer to pretend such works don't exist, or to simplistically dismiss them as "propaganda" is because recognition of those works would mean a whole lot of extra work to remedy the omissions and correct the "NPOV" of the existing WW2 and related articles. Trying to engage constructively with editors of that ilk is an excercise in futility. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. This discussion in now closed from my end. Communicat (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::: If there are "reliable, well-researched books" you should list them so they can be assessed. Then again since you think Winer's book is such a book instead an obvious fringe theory, I am skeptical. Edward321 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The above posting is a duplicate of posting at WW2 talk page, because Blinksternet posted a complaint relating to both WW2 and Stratbombing articles. For long and further subsequent discussion see WW2 current and archived interrelated threads, which have not been duplicated here. The numerous, relevant titles/authors of "reliable, well-researched books" you inquire about have all been listed, though not cohesively, in various WW2 discussion threads. Gets complicated. Communicat (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BDA

In re my rv of the latest effort, let me explain. To begin with, sourced or not, it struck me very anti-Brit POV. It was flat wrong in associating the USAAF with "morale bombing" (beside getting the term wrong). It was also POV, & wrong, in the assessment of the Hague Convention (which only prohibits bombing "undefended" targets, & between searchlights, flak, & fighters, there weren't any "undefended" cities in Germany by 1942). Moreover, the implication this was a Brit war crime, but Germany was "incapable" in some measure, is POV & wrong, too. No, not because "the Germans started it", but because the Germans did no different: if it's a war crime for the Allies, it's a war crime for Germany. It wasn't for the Allies, as noted; it might have been for the Germans, because I'm less sure Warsaw, frex, was "defended". Nor is the Hague Con as clear as the edit suggested: attacks on military targets, & "misses", were expected & allowed for. Feel free to re-add, if you can address these. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are still problems with the wording "Targeting cities and civilians was viewed as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight." this is not the primary reason that cites were targeted yet this sentence implies that it was. Cities were targeted by the British primarily because they were easy to hit (and up to the date of the area bombing directive the RAF had not even proved very good at hitting the right city let alone a specific factory), and it was thought that this was a way that production could be affected. The reason for this was that during the Blitz, that the destruction of factories was not as easy as pre war it was thought to be. Targeting people was difficult because they tended to take to shelters, but if their housing was destroyed they had to take time off work to find somewhere new to live, and they would probably have to commute further to work using up valuable transport infrastructure etc etc. If their moral was adversely affected so much the better, but it was not the primary motive city bombing. The Singleton report summed it up: "If Russia can hold Germany on land I doubt whether Germany will stand 12 or 18 months’ continuous, intensified and increased bombing, affecting, as it must, her war production, her power of resistance, her industries and her will to resist (by which I mean morale)". -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This was a good reversion. The added material was clearly POV and frequently outright wrong. It came complete with many of the usual fringe theory claims about World War II in Europe; Germany wanted peace with Britain, Churchill was a monster, allusions to the western Allies conspiring with the USSR, Allied war crimes have been covered up, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Back again, I see. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2011

MyMoloboaccount you made this edit which removed " As a defended city in the direct front-line that refused calls to surrender [Warsaw] could legitimately be attacked under the Hague Conventions." with the comment "this is not a mainstream view as acknowledged by the author himself, and actually the sentence concerns only the last phase of the bombing on 25th September" what do you think is the mainstream view is of bombings such as Caen and Wesel? -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted the edit (which also removed a request for a citation without providing a cite) as this material is in the source and it (the recent semi-official German history of the war ) is a very reliable source which has attracted excellent reviews. If there are other views or the author of the book later added some provisos to this assessment they should definitely be included in the article though. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears the view at the time was the attack was legit. The Hague Convention only prohibited air attacks on undefended targets, which this would not be. I have seen opposing views, but they seem to be opposed to strategic bombing of any kind. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that at the time of World War II it was legal to deliberately bomb civilian areas (even with the express purpose of killing civilians and rendering them homeless) and this wasn't outlawed until new international agreements were negotiated after the war. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Tho my grasp of the subject is by no means total, I've read excerpts of the Convention which expressly prohibit bombing of "undefended targets". It does allow what we'd call "collateral damage" in attacks on military targets, & doesn't say if factories are included. (My impression is, "not".) That said, no city in Occupied Europe of any consequence could be considered "undefended", between flak, day & night fighters, searchlights, radar, & even bomb shelters & blackout regulations... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Germany was not in occupied Europe (until after it was occupied). The Allies tried not to inflict damage or causality on occupied cities unless it directly affected the war, while their targeting on German (and Italian) cites was less discriminatory as they were willing to target any civilian infrastructure that aided the war effort not matter how tenuous the link to the Axis war effort (eg civilian housing).

I think a good introductory article to this is the Aerial bombardment and international law, the references used in the article go into more detail. One of the sources used is Javier Guisández Gómez (30 June 1998). "The Law of Air Warfare". International Review of the Red Cross (323): 347–363. and that is well worth reading as it not only talks about the situation in WWII but also about the situation with aerial warfare today.

One point that is not emphasised in the ABIL article is that the Shimoda judgement leaned heavily on the The Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare (1923) which was never adopted, but it ignored the Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War (1938) which (was not adopted either). The trouble for this ruling is that the wording of the Amsterdam Draft Convention tends to undermine findings of the Japanese court. For example the definition of defended in article 2 of the Amsterdam Draft Convention is very different from that given by the Japanese court. It may be that the court would still have found that Hiroshima was undefended using the Amsterdam Draft Convention ... .

As Gómez says: "In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war ... The absence of positive law, in this case treaty law, certainly does not mean complete freedom in the use of means and methods, tactics and technology". But it does mean that analysis of whether aerial bombardment as carried out by all sides was a war crime or not does come down to an informed matter of opinion. But as all sides did it and it was not a breach or positive international law, then "if international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited" (Jefferson D. Reynolds. "Collateral Damage on the 21st century battlefield: Enemy exploitation of the law of armed conflict, and the struggle for a moral high ground". Air Force Law Review Volume 56, 2005(PDF) Page 57/58), which AFAICT makes it unlikely that such city bombing was a war crime by the end of WWII even if it had been thought to be before WWII.

-- PBS (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I should, perhaps, have mentioned Germany also... :( I meant to exclude, frex, Spain or Switzerland, not Germany. I would also agree with your conclusion: bombing might have earned charges for war crimes, but any half-competent attorney could prevent conviction, on the plain wording extant.

I do wish you hadn't put in the links, tho. I've got too much to read & not enough time already. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:38 & 08:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Boog makes somewhat political statements which make me sceptical about his neutrality regarding Luftwaffe. He has also been described as trying to paint a "saubere Luftwaffe" image. Neverthless even in his work he focuses on bombing in late September, which is a bit of a manipulation(the bombings started way earlier). There are a series of mistakes in the Wiki text about the bombing and somewhat stretched sentences(I would risk even saying manipulation)-which I will correct using source from Professor Tomasz Szarota about bombing of Warsaw.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For instance the claim As a defended city in the direct front-line that refused calls to surrender is a manipulation. Warsaw wasn't in direct frontline when it was first bombed, and the demands for surrender also came way later also.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Submarine pens

To accurately appraise the United States Strategic Bombing Survey summary one has to know it is written from an American perspective and it presents a view that the USAF wanted to promote (that their way of bombing was the best and it significantly helped win the war in Europe). Take for example the paragraph

In January 1943, at Casablanca, the objective of the strategic air forces was established as the "destruction and dislocation of the Germany military, industrial, and economic system and the undermining of the morale of the German people to the point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened." Specific target systems were named.

Well yes! there were BUT Bomber Harris chose to interpret the Casablanca directive to mean the RAF bombing at night should continue target and bomb German cities until the rubble was bouncing, AND top of the "list of Specific target systems were named" was "(a) Submarine construction yards." followed by German aircraft industry etc, but I don't think that one would draw that conclusion from that rather disingenuous paragraph in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey summary (although they do mention it at the end of the next paragraph when they mention it was dropped from first priority).

The result of this edit was our article says:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Europe), however, says, despite bombing becoming a major effort, between December 1942 and June 1943, "The attack on the construction yards and slipways was not heavy enough to be more than troublesome." The Survey concluded the delays in deploying the new submarines cannot be attributed to air attack(United States Strategic Bombing Survey summary).

Is that quote a fair summary of what the Survey says? Or is it only part of the story:

In November and December of 1942, the U-boat attack on Allied merchant shipping was in its most successful phase and submarine bases and pens and later construction yards became the chief target and remained so until June 1943. These attacks accomplished little. The submarine pens were protected and bombs did not penetrate the 12-foot concrete roofs. The attack on the construction yards and slipways was not heavy enough to be more than troublesome.

...

... When the Combined Bomber Offensive Plan was issued in June of 1943 to implement the Casablanca directive, submarines were dropped from first priority and the German aircraft industry was substituted. The German ball- bearing industry, the supplier of an important component, was selected as a complementary target.

...

In November of 1944, the Allied air forces returned to an attack on the submarine building yards. In the months that had elapsed since the spring of 1943, the Germans had put into production the new Types 21 and 23 designed to operate for long periods without surfacing and so escape radar equipped aircraft patrols as well as surface attack. And an ambitious effort had been made to prefabricate submarine hulls and turn the slipways into mere points of final assembly. The program was not working smoothly. Though nearly two hundred had been produced, difficulties with the new type, together with the time required for training crews, had prevented all but eight from becoming operational. These delays cannot be attributed to the air attack.

The attacks during the late winter and early spring of 1945 did close, or all but close, five of the major yards, including the great Blohm and Voss plant at Hamburg. Had the war continued, these attacks, coupled with the attack on transportation, would have removed the threat of further production of the new submarine.

Valentin submarine pens (1945) after being hit by a Grand Slam – note the figure standing on the pile of rubble.

It seems to me that the summary in our article ignores the last paragraph an the last sentence in that paragraph "Had the war continued, these attacks, coupled with the attack on transportation, would have removed the threat of further production of the new submarine". -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"had the war continued..." --well that gets us nowhere. I suggest had the war continued the atomic bomb would have obliterated Berlin in August. Uboat construction was a long-term factor and by early 1945 there was no more long term to the war; everything was short term. My own view is that the bombing of the pens in 1945 was a waste of effort, though it has to be admitted the bombers were running out of targets. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the after the war speculation, our article which is a summary of a summary says "The attack on the construction yards and slipways was not heavy enough to be more than troublesome." yet the USAF summary say "The attacks during the late winter and early spring of 1945 did close, or all but close, five of the major yards". I do not think that our summary is not an accurate summary of the USAF summary. -- PBS (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Richards in The Hardest Victory claims (p. 395-6, based on Volume IV of the British official history and the British Bombing Survey) Bomber Command) that between them Bomber Command and the USAAF destroyed 111 U-boats in production and sank 54 after delivery, with disruption of communications and components possibly preventing the delivery of as many more. Which doesn't sound that trivial.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering how long, & how much effort (& loss!), it took to achieve, & considering it's measured against over 1000 U-boats built, I'd say it wasn't worth it. Just the number of bombers lost attacking the pens (266), if handed over to Coastal Command, would have effectively closed the Atlantic to U-boats in '42. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken in distinguishing between area attacks against the bases in France, which did not start in earnest until 14 January 1943 and continued until April that year, which did little more than wreck the French towns, leaving the U-boat pens unaffected (as Harris had predicted) and later attacks against shipyards, when both bomber forces were much more effective.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, & agreed. However, it seems to me, the above summary, taken from the Summary Report, pretty much makes the case: bombing was too little & too late; when you have to argue for war continuing to say there'd be benefit... (The attacks on the pens were an exercise in futility.) I maintain a tiny fraction of the number of a/c assigned to bombing pens or yards, if turned over to A/S patrol in the Atlantic/Biscay, in particular Newfoundland, would have had vastly more beneficial impact, & much sooner, at enormously lower losses in a/c & crews. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the accounts of the bombing campaign I've read assess the results of the campaign against submarine pens as not being worth the cost. In his history of the German submarine campaign Clay Blair also (from memory) forcefully argues that attacking the pens was wasteful as transferring even small numbers of heavy bombers to convoy protection units would have been much more effective in destroying submarines. Bombing of transport infrastructure in 1944 and 1945 did cause major problems for the development and construction of the new generation of submarines, but the war was just about over by then and the subs were crippled with technical problems and issues resulting from shoddy construction anyway. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that entirely, except for your emphasis on "destruction". :D That's a doctrinal disagreement, which I don't expect we'll (ever) entirely settle. I take the Brit view: getting the convoys thru takes precedence over destroying U-boats. As few as 3 squadrons of VLRs in NF in '41-2 could have cut losses to U-boats all out of proportion, even without sinking a single one. How much the war would be affected, I don't have the stats offhand: shortened by a year? That's just 27 (if I'm right: 9 to a bomber squadron?) a/c, against 266 lost to no gain in the same period. It makes me want to strangle Harris, & to beat Portal & Churchill about the head for letting him get away with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not there were more efficient usages of Allied materiel, is not the issue here. The issue is: is the Wikipedia summary of the USAF summary accurate? Our article states "The Survey concluded the delays in deploying the new submarines cannot be attributed to air attack" yet that is not what is said in the USAF concluding paragraph on bombing submarine facilities in the article. Does anyone think that the current wording is an accurate summary of the USAF summary article? -- PBS (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think the Summary already gives you the answer: it took until 1945 to close the shipyards, the destruction of boats building was small, & the number of sinkings of U-boats by these air attacks trivial. It appears the position being defended is the USAAF "party line", that bombing won the war, while the evidence is, "not really". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be the 'USAAF "party line", but that is the point! The Wikipedia article states "The Survey concluded ..." but the survey did not conclude what Wikipedia say the USAAF survey concluded with regards to bombing submarine production sites. "The attacks during ... 1945 did close, or all but close, five of the major yards,... Had the war continued, these attacks, coupled with the attack on transportation, would have removed the threat of further production of the new submarine." You may disagree with that summary but that is the USAAF concluding summary on the bombing of submarine production facilities in their summary document. -- PBS (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

♠By 1945, Germany was in ruin. I'd be very surprised if the yards hadn't closed by then, considering more bombs were dropped in '44 alone than the entire war before that. The very same doc says, for the pertinent period (i.e., before bombing became overwhelming & fighter defense a virtual joke), "The attack on the construction yards and slipways was not heavy enough to be more than troublesome." & "delays cannot be attributed to the air attack".

♠Do you mean to say the only time we're going to consider is at the end of the war? Or, rather, after it, since your quoted passage depends on war continuing to "remove the threat". It seems to me absurd. If the aim was to eliminate subs as a threat by bombing, a time short of the end of the war, at the very least, should be the benchmark. The passage you offer fails on even that. In short, bombing has failed, & the Survey doesn't want to say so because the people involved are members of the organization defending the bombing. We are left with their conflict of interest.

♠How do you propose settling it? Or, perhaps rather, what date do you propose as a "cutoff year"? I suggest 1945 is a non-starter; by then, results should long since have been shown. I propose any date after July 1943 demonstrates failure of the campaign, because, by then, it's acknowledged the U-boat had been mastered & the Battle of the Atlantic was won. Which, as I look at it, implies the bombing campaign was a fail before it started, wasn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I started to reply to your points with technological race, back and fourth, Grand slam bombs, U-boats fighting to the last day of the war, etc., but then I realised that it is off topic. You are debating points of view which if you want to put in the article you need sources to back it up. What is said about the bombing of the submarine production facilities is at the moment is not an accurate summary of the source. -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about putting a POV in the article, sources or not (tho I might point to Miller & van der Vat, for a start). Neither did I intend a debate on the merits of bombing the yards (not here, anyhow; if you want, we can go into it on my talk page, & I'll happily match wits, & sources, with you ;p). I do mean to ask how omitting the year in question does anything but skew the result. "not an accurate summary"? By only considering the situation in 1945, the picture is incomplete &, I submit, inaccurate, no matter what the "summary" of the report says: that summary was designed to serve a political purpose for USAAF, & is, thus, suspect in its conclusions. Moreover, by 1945, the outcome was settled, so the effect on the subwar was small; as I said, after mid-'43, bombing was of diminishing value. (I don't have either Miller of van der Vat in front of me, so no, I can't cite a page.) What I'm hoping for is some balance in the views, rather than simply reliance on a single "conclusion": let the reader decide. The quoted passages are from the source. Don't they speak for themselves? Or is only one view, the "party line", to be allowed? Or am I wasting my time even asking, because you have no intention of listening to me anyhow? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the RAF and 8th army air force should have remained tactical air forces after Normandy and not resumed strategic bombing because the outcome of the war was settled is way beyond that paragraph. By 45 the Brits had a weapon that could and did seriously mess up certain types of German infrastructure. That they used them on targets that other types of bombs had failed to destroy is to be expected. That these bombs did and could destroy German facilities to produce subs is historically accurate. Whether that was a cost effective use of limited British resources to produce then aircraft and bombs to preform this task is another question.

"I submit, inaccurate, no matter what the "summary" of the report says" Then a different conclusion no matter how accurate should not be attributed to the summary document. It is verifiability not truth that we want from sources and the conclusion in the summary document is not that summarised as the conclusion in the Wikipedia article. If you think that the summary document does not reflect the truth then you need a better source to support it and drop the use of the summary document. But if the summary document is to be used as a source then the Wikipedia summary should be an accurate. An accurate summary will include 1945 as the summary document includes 1945. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, what part of what I said even mentioned whether BC & 8hAF should have been tactical forces? The subject was, is, bombing of the sub pens & shipyards. Bombing of them was increasingly less important because the U-boats were being defeated (in fact, had already been defeted) without it. In this context, it makes damn all difference if there were tactical applications or other targets on the lists, & whether they were a priority.

The logic of you comments that bombing of submarine facilities in 45 should be ignored because "war was just about over by then" is an argument frequently used for all the strategic bombing of Germany in 45 particularly those raids resulting in 10,000 of deaths. The 45 bombings to paraphrase a paraphrase may have saved the bones of one Allied sailor if the hampered the putting to sea of just one u-boat, and as such senior members of the Bomber commands have justify such bombings by those criteria. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"a different conclusion no matter how accurate should not be attributed to the summary document" Huh? I'm not suggesting there's "another conclusion". Neither have I said "another conclusion" should be substituted. I'm saying the "single conclusion" you appear to be clinging to is deceptive & incomplete. I'm also saying we should be presenting the evidence in the document, not simply "the conclusion" (whatever it is), & let readers make up their own minds. What part of that do you object to? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Survey concluded the delays in deploying the new submarines cannot be attributed to air attack". This is not an accurate summation of the conclusion of the summary document because the summary document includes a paragraph on 1945 which is being ignored and as such Wikipdia is misleading the reader over he summary document's conclusion of the bombing of German submarine production facilities . -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

♠So omitting "The Survey concluded" would suit you? Or do you mean to say a statement "had the war continued past 1945" should carry more weight when the war ended? I find that nonsensical. Do you mean to say the conclusion "delays were not due to air attack" is false because it's not expressly repeated?

♠Notice, I have not said anything about the war being "just about over". It was over in 1945, & defending attacks on the sub pens as "would have had an impact after that" is absurd.

♠I have said, & continue to maintain, U-boats were as much as defeated in July-August 1943, when the convoy losses dramatically dropped. Dönitz knew it, & within a couple of months, Winston & the Admiralty knew it, too. Harris & Spaatz, obviously, did not, for they continued to bomb sub pens to scant effect til the war ended, & still had not achieved the stated objective.

♠"Wikipdia is misleading the reader" By omitting evidence it had no discernible effect, in the name of "one conclusion", yes. I presume you'd continue to object to statements omitting any "conclusion", & simply say both "no effect" & "effect beyond war's end"? As noted, the political objectives of the report cannot be ignored; if omissions were made in the "conclusions" section, I can't say I'd be surprised the lack of effect was ignored or glossed over. WP should not be party to a whitewash.

♠Saying WP is about verifiability, not truth, IMO, is defense of intellectual dishonesty in this instance. I repeat, present both sides & let the reader decide, rather than force adoption of one "conclusion" or another. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The description is not about attacks that might have taken place after the war it is about attacks that took place during the war in 45

The attacks during the late winter and early spring of 1945 did close, or all but close, five of the major yards, including the great Blohm and Voss plant at Hamburg. Had the war continued, these attacks, coupled with the attack on transportation, would have removed the threat of further production of the new submarine.

— summary document (My italics)

The attacks on the yards had been completed, The italics is the attacks on communications that had not been completed and the speculation. I am not arguing debating the points you make about it being a less than adequate source, and it it is augmented with additional more modern sources that hold a different POV and they are summarised accurately you will hear no objections from me (about the summary but perhaps about the weighting given tot he POVs), but the current Wikipedia summary of the document conclusion is not accurate and gives a misleading interpretation of what the summary document says. If I read "The Survey concluded ..." I expect that to be a fair summary of the conclusions drawn by the survey whether those conclusions are good bad or indifferent. -- PBS (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"The description is not about attacks that might have taken place after the war it is about attacks that took place during the war in 45" Except the effects are all but irrelevant by 1945. "Had the war continued"? It wouldn't. It didn't. Even in 1945, the attacks on the yards made scant difference, because the U-boat threat diminished dramatically more than a year before. And putting forth the "had the war continued" position is skewing the viewpoint in favor of a POV that is either biased or flat wrong. I confess I don't understand why you insist on holding on to it.

"If I read 'The Survey concluded ...'" I can live with us not saying it concluded anything & let readers make up their minds. That will, as I see it, mean the "war continuing" position will need to be refuted, with sourcing. (I will also admit I don't have it at hand, or I'd have done it already.) I'm not going to say it should be omitted, but it needs perspective from here which is going to seem OT, because it's getting away from bombing & into subwar, & into why BdU didn't introduce Type XXIs sooner. In short, to explain why bombing mattered at all, you have to know about the new types...& about why they were too little, too late, even without bombing. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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)