Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime?

I'm sure that the RAF bomber crews would agree wholeheartedly with you Timber.....flying over enemy territory being fired at whilst carrying a full payload would have been jolly good fun.
I bet they were disappointed when the war ended.

One can NOT set the moral standards of WW2 by todays ideals and values. By the time America finally entered the war, many Cities in Britain had been fiercely pounded by German bombers, the population were facing severe rationing and the Country was on the verge of starvation.

The Germans made the first move in bombing civilians (error my arse), by diverting their efforts away from our airfields during the latter part of the period known as the battle of Britain.

Ironically, had they continued with their strategy of destroying our airfields, they may have succeeded. The change to civilian bombing was welcomed in a wierd way by the RAF, as it gave them time to regroup and continue with their significant resistance.

If I were an average Brit in those days, I would have probably cheered at the news of Dresden etc. Like I say, different times, different codes and standards. Needs must when the Devil drives.

How do you marry up your WW2 beliefs with what is happening in Iraq today?
Fallujah.....total destruction....is that a war crime? Was your Country standing all alone, at the brink of collapse, being threatened by a ruthless mechanised military machine the likes of which had never been seen before?
Had all of your previous neighbouring Allies surrendered, and was your vast enemy within sight, across just a few miles of water?

Answer...no. You experienced one awful act of terrorism on your own soil.

Vengeful? I think Britain had cause to be. Can you say the same about the modern day leadership of the USA? Their reasons to go to war, and their tactics/strategy?

As for the entire period covered by Steve's question, i would have to say that by January, 1945, neither the USAAF nor the RAF really had anything left to bomb in Germany worth the effort to put hundreds of aircraft in the air, and to put thousands of aircrew at risk. The argument about a salient around Dresden won't wash in my view--the Russians and the Anglo-Americans had met at the Elbe; Dresden was simply an unpleasant bulge in eye of someone plotting lines on a map. The area of German control was contracting daily, and in a most untidy fashion. Saying that the flank of Russian advances was threated seems quite a stretch to me. In fact, i suggest that wheter intended or not, bombing Dresden was a case of trying to give a leg up to Timonshenko's army group in its race with Zhukov's army group to reach Berlin. Any Germans who actually were leaving Italy were doing so on foot, and no longer in coherent units above the abteilung size. Field Marshall Alexander's forces were racing around the corner into Istria, and the Germans were flooding back over the Julian Alps in an incoherent stream.

Basically, by 1945, there was nothing left to bomb of any truely military significance. In Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne, Dusseldorf, and many, many other cities, we all were simply shifting the rubble, stirring up the dust. This was seen earlier on a smaller scale in Normandy. Eisenhower had gotten approval for his "transportation plan," which diverted 8th and 9th USAAF and RAF resources to attacking the transportation communications systems in France. In The Rommel Papers, willy old Erwin quickly and correcly identifies Normandy as the invasion site on that basis. On D-Day, the Germans flew 160 sorties in all of France, and exactly two over the invasion beachs. RAF and 8th and 9th USAAF flew 14,827 sorties (i've read it so many times, i've memorized it) over Normandy alone. The transportation plan quickly ran out targets, and began dumping their bomb loads on any crossroads they could see--the casualties among the French were appalling.

On the larger scale, by January, 1945, the period which Steve has specified, there were simply too few legitimate targets left, and too many assets which otherwise would have been idle--and we couldn't have that, could we? They should go out and bomb something!

I'm sure that Steve has correcly identified the attitufe of the poor, benighted soul in Germany in 1945. I'm sure they congregated on street corners before going to the shelters to discuss the comparative merits of their tormentors.

"Ooo, Ooo, the Amis are coming to bomb us again. You know, they're so nice and polite--not like those nasty Tommies who come sneaking in the night. How lucky we are that the Amis have chosen us!"

edited in the interests of furthering deeper understanding of Anglo American relations

Unwarranted and unnecessary.

Timber, you might find it interesting that more than half of my family (all females, excluding my one week old nephew) died under bombs - and we became very friendly with the pilot's/nvaigator's families (and that's where I, as a 14-year-old boy, could read some stuff, which even nowadays isn't opened for the public).

A general thought.
In a way, it was all a bit academic anyway, from the outset of the war. IMO, from the moment that the Nazis loaded their first Death Train they had thrown out the rule book, thereby removing any of their rights under the Geneva Convention.


Steve,
I must say that I can fully understand your earlier comment re. World history, but I wouldnt think that (or at least I hope not) Timber represents the actual view that the USA takes on this matter.

What you've got to remember is that their war only lasted from 42-45, and they really dont understand what this Country went through in the preceeding three years.

I was always of the understanding that it was a joint agreement that bombing was "round the clock", in order to cause the maximum disruption to the German war effort. By the time the Americans arrived, our Bomber crew were seriously low in personnel, and our planes/technology not as advanced.
The Americans, with their shiny new planes and crew, and bang up to date bombsighting equipment, higher altitude capability and bigger payload, seemed to be the logical choice for daylight raids. Unfortunately, when these raids first started, the range of the accompanying fighters was totally inadequate, resulting in massive loss of planes and crew. They certainly were brave young men.

To infer that the night time raids carried out by the RAF were a bit of a jolly and were for mainly entertainment purposes, Timber "seems" to be downgrading the British contribution, as they often do in Hollywood war movies. He shouldnt be surprised therefore, when he reads the British responses.
We should be proud of what Britain stood up to in Europe, glad that America joined us to make a serious second front, and never forget that it was the Russians who took most of the Sh*t, and played the biggest part in bringing down the Nazis.
What the Russians did AFTER the war is another matter, but without them, our success would have been in the balance, many more thousands of Americans, Brits and Commonwealth troops would have died, and the war would have dragged on a lot longer.
Round the clock bombing of anything that moved probably shortened the war significantly though. Absolutely awful, but bloody effective.

In The First and the Last, Galland confirms what Chuck Yeager (an American test pilot and war time "ace") stated about the P51 Mustang with it's Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Having escorted the bomber stream from Aachen (limit of the range of older escort aircraft) to the target and back to Aachen, the Mustang still had three or four hours of time in the air available, and they shot up everything that moved on the ground. They absolutely paralyzed day time transportation communications.

Earlier, in Normandy, both American and English fighters and fighter-bombers had done the same thing. The 6th Fallschirmjaeger (paratroop infantry) Brigade was 60 kilometers from the invasion beaches, and required seven days to arrive. They simply could not move in the day time.

For this, the Americans paid a high price, indeed. We lost about 30,000 air crew members over France and Germany.

Neither side (as regards the "Yanks" and the "Limeys") needs to take the piss of the other on this topic, and certainly not to get genuinely angry.

And let us not ignore what Walter points to. Those who suffered most from Hitler's madness were Germans--German non-combatants.

Well, Set. actually I didn't really want to point at the suffering of the German non-combatants* but more to the fact that I do know indeed something about the air war - by family experience and by reading original (literally first hand) sources.

* My father had had a non-combatant status, and wore a uniform (army surgeon), which normally should have indicated this to others.
Nevertheless, they shot at him at three times, on April 30, 1945, when the US troops entered my native town (two 'spear heads' surrounding the Ruhr district joined there).
And later, he and a good dozen more non-combatants (all well Geneva-treaty documents/ID-cards) were "fun executed".

Set, I absolutely agree.

I hope I didnt come across as taking the P*ss.

What I really admire, is the way that Germany has dealt with the education of this subject, as regards to its young. We had a Geman exchange student stay with us several years ago, and while we were in Carnaby Street (he didnt want to see the Art Museums, he wanted to buy T Shirts for his friends, typical teenager...the same the world over) he opted to buy a T Shirt made up like a Rock Band Tour programme, but it was all about Hitler. "Adolf's European tour" and then listed all the Countries he took, in date order as if they were gigs. At the bottom of the list was "England tour - Cancelled".
I was worried as to the reaction he may encounter upon his return. He said the T Shirt was for his Grandfather, who would find it very funny.
This started a conversation about the war, and it became clear that he was taught that it was the NAZIS who were the problem, and not the German people themselves. There was more to it than that, of course, but that is the general gist of his education.
What a great way to start afresh....why SHOULD the younger generation German have to carry the burden of guilt that was caused by the Nazi party. They learned all about the death camps, the atrocities in Russia and the timeline history of the war itself, but were in no way made to feel the blame.
Anyway, two weeks later, I received a photo of Grandpappy wearing the T Shirt, and a long letter assuring me that he had indeed found it funny, and wore it to his local Pub. He hated Hitler, but like all other like minded Germans at that time, kept his mouth shut for fear of major reprisals against his family. His friend was a writer, and had published anti Nazi pamphlets at the beginning of the war. Six members of the writers family "disappeared" and he went into hiding with extended family in Switzerland for the duration.
Granddad therefore kept his mouth shut. I would have probably done the same, if I had been in his shoes.

Walter, that's terrible. How do you not feel bitterness? If you do, then you certainly dont show it.

Both of my parents participated in that war. In fact, they met and married in England in April, 1944. My mother was a registered nurse, and her field hospital landed at Normandy on day 16, the day before the gale wiped out the "mulberry" docks and effectively isolated the invasion forces.

With their transport sitting on a dock in Plymouth, her hospital had to "hitch a ride." They ended up near Caen, in the Canadian sector. The Canadians were ferociously attacked by the 12th SS Panzergrenadier Division, the Hitler Youth division. My mother told us when we were just liddlies of the German teenagers who were brought to their hospital, badly wounded and as badly frightened if not more so. My mother can sing about half a dozen German lullabies, and yet speaks no word of the language. German officers taught them phonetically to the American nurses, so that they could sing those frightened, mangled boys to sleep at night. The Canajun wounded would come to their wards in the day time, bringing packs of cards and magazines, to reassure them that they would not be shot as they slept, as their Nazi political officers had told them before they went into battle.

I cannot recount those stories of hers without a huge lump filling my throat. War is an organized cruelty which the "little people" suffer, while the great contemplate their grandure in comfort and safety. If there is an us and them to war, justice would dictate that the "them" is the rotten bastards who start wars, and the "us" is the common foot soldier, his wife and his children--and their name is Legion.

Yup.

My father didn't go to that place (that's where they made this fun execution) until he retired (although he actually had to go there profesionally).

A classmate of my father bought my granparent's home (one half was totally knocked down). My father never went there, although he was invited once a year to their class meetings.

No, it was war, Germany was the aggressor and we lost it - bitterness about these things is out of place here.

"Unwarranted and unnecessary."

Well I didnt have you in mind Set.

But it was, so I've withdrawn it.

I hadn't meant for you to do that, Boss, i just thought that we all might need to cool off . . . your natural character of a gentleman asserts itself, which is why we all enjoy having you with us.

oh dear, feel the eyes pricking with tears again

Any-road-up

Was listening to a fascinating interview with the only living survivor of the German surrender at Lunenberg heath 4th May 1945.

Chap called Derek Nea I think. He was a 22 year old translator on Montgomery's staff. (Still clearly bright as a button).

He said the first thing that struck him (after getting over the shock of finding himself in such a position) was that the German delegation had no real idea of the military situation. Montgomery gave them maps showing in particular the disposition of the Russians. After they studied it a while the head of the German delegation (Freimann?) broke down in tears. But they were reluctant to sign. They broke for lunch (the Germans ate alone, served with wine and congac) and afterwards presumably feeling a bit better, signed the surrender document. A fortnight later when Mr Nea had travelled with Montgomery to arrest Donitz's government near the Danish border, he saw Freimann bite on a cyanide capsule.

The interview only lasted about 5 minutes, but Nea was asked what he concluded from his experiences. He said that nations must learn to avoid war over "relatively trivial" matters, and that education was the key.

Next item...."Following yesterdays carnage in Irbil, at least 20 people have been killed in a suicide bomb attack...."

Education, or lack of it.

I admit your are a master in sarcasm, Steve...

I could hardly perceive that your tone could be diverted so abruptly... :wink:

Anyway, good point.

Thanks JB.

Actually I wasn't trying to be particularly ironic, although I suppose you could read it that way. I just find it immensely depressing that we all know there are better ways to solve human problems than war and yet we continue to commit the most unspeakable crimes against each other.

And saddest of all is when the fighting stops and we meet the enemy we have been taught to hate, we find them just the same as us.

I note that English is not your first language...you write very well.

Regarding the difference between sarcasm and irony; I would suggest that sarcasm is a more blunt form of humour. Perhaps deliberately saying something is "absolutely wonderful" when it clearly isn't.

Irony is more subtle. Like establishing a general rule then pointing out something goes in the other direction.

I got it. Thanks for pointing it out Steve

Your sentiment of war is truely the most appropriate one of mankind.
But lots of foolish people aren't on your side. They believe there are something more important than love, than mutual understanding.
And no leaders in this world will accept it as a principle.
Sad things...