Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the level we have to deal with seems to think that 25th August, 1940 comes before the 24th August, 1940, or even before 1st September, 1939.

The first RAF Bombing raid on Berlin was an attack on Templehof Airport, on the 25th August 1940. The first German bombs dropped onto London on 24th August, 1940. Of course, all this was well after the bombings at Wielun, Frampol and Warsaw. Seems that 'revisionists' aren't very good at dates.
 
9/11-investigator said:
I thought that these Germans liked killing and what better means of safely killing other people is there than heavy bombers?
Click to expand...


The Luftwaffe never developed a heavy bomber force. Partly that was because the prevailing doctrine saw the Luftwaffe as a tactical rather than a strategic force. It's intended role was to support the army, thus the favouring of dive bombers and twin-engined medium bombers. And partly it was because the champion of developing a long-range heavy bomber force, General Walther Wever, was killed in a crash before the war, and the program essentially died with him.


So, the Allies bombed 'safely' did they? I'm not sure how, for example, having 69 American bombers shot down in the March 6, 1944, raid on Berlin (9.8% of the attacking force), or 95 British bombers shot down on the March 30/31, 1944, raid on Nuremberg (12.1% of the attacking force) is considered 'safe.'

The benchmark for sustainable losses in the bombing campaign was 5%. But a constant 5% loss rate is actually enormous. If you start with a force of 100 bombers and lose a constant 5% of them on each mission, after just nine missions you are down to 63 aircraft. That's 37% of your force gone in just nine missions. Doesn't sound particularly safe to me.

RAF bomber crews were required to fly a tour of thirty missions. At an average loss rate of 5%, a crew stood a 60% chance of completing 10 missions, a 37% chance of completing 20 missions, and just a 22% chance of completing all 30 missions. Doesn't sound safe to me at all.

So, crews stood a very good chance of being shot down well before completing their tour of duty. But what were their chances of escaping alive their downed aircraft? From January-June 1943, on average the member of a Lancaster crew stood just a 10.9% chance of surviving being shot down; a Halifax crew, 29.0%; a Wellington crew, 17.5%. This especially doesn't sound safe to me.

Germany had plenty of day and night fighters to defend its airspace, not to mention radar networks and numerous flak batteries. In regards to the last, in March of 1942 there were 3,970 heavy flak guns defending German cities (at a time when the RAF had not even yet launched its first so-called 'thousand plane' raid). By September 1944 the number had grown to 10,225. Indeed, according to Albert Speer (who certainly was in a position to know these things), of the 19,713 88-mm and 128-mm dual-purpose anti-tank/anti-aircraft flak guns produced between 1942 and 1944, only 3,172 (16%) were allocated to the army for use in the anti-armour role. The rest were pointed skywards at Allied bombers. (Which was a fortunate thing for Allied armoured forces; that's over 16,000 fewer excellent anti-tank guns pointed at them.)


9/11-investigator said:
Are you saying that in reality it were the allies specialized in mass killing?
Click to expand...


If by 'specialized in mass killing' you mean 'crippled Germany's ability to wage war' then yes.

Now, was the RAF's nighttime offensive as decisive in crippling that ability to wage war as was the USAAF's daytime offensive? Certainly not. The Americans went after specific industries to cause specfic economic disruption; the British went after cities to cause general economic dislocation and disruption (since hitting the area of a city was often the best one could hope to do at night, as I stated previously). The former is naturally easier to measure than the latter. But the RAF's nighttime bombing offensive most certainly had some signficant indirect effects on the German economy.

Those indirect effects, combined with the direct effect of the American bombing, devastated the German economy and destroyed its ability to wage war.

Do recall what I said many posts back (and which you have not challenged): no civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. That equation remains unchanged. You can continue to make the civilian/military distinction, but in an industrialized nation-state with the military utterly dependent on the mass production of that nation-state to survive and operate, such a distinction is, at best, purely arbitrary.


9/11-investigator said:
A few weeks ago the revisionist Friedrich Paul Berg on the bombing of civilian targets...
Click to expand...


By the way, what precisely is a 'civilian' target?


dudalb said:
Almost all of us have given up on 9/11 Investigator; we are just doing this to show any lurkers how full of you know what he is.
Click to expand...


That's pretty much why I'm doing it.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
The V-1 and V-2 "revenge weapons"
Click to expand...

That's true. After most German cities had already been destroyed (purpose: making sure that Poland was handed over to the Soviet-Union) the Germans tried to take revenge:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/V1_(wapen)

De eerste gedocumenteerde V1-aanval op Londen vond plaats op 13 juni 1944, een week na de landing in Normandië.

It was only in 1944 that the Germans resorted to V1/V2 terror tactics.
 
Here I found a site that lists the bomb attacks. Have not checked it but it can serve as a sort of kick-off:

http://www.nexusboard.net/sitemap/6365/filmbeitrage-uber-die-luftwaffe-t297129/

Einleitung des Luftkrieges durch England (Anm.: Nur Auszüge daraus. Es fehlen hierbei: Pforzheim, Würzburg und noch mindestens 150 weitere deutsche Städte!)

* 5. September 1939 Englische Luftangriffe auf Wilhelmshaven und Cuxhaven

* 12. Januar 1940 Bombenangriff auf Westerland (Sylt, Stadtrand)

* April 1940 Zahlreiche englische Einflüge in die Deutsche Bucht

* 10. Mai 1940 Englischer Angriff auf Freiburg/Br. (50 Tote)

* Mai 1940 Zahlreiche englische Einflüge bis Hamburg und München

* 10./1. Mai 1940 RAF-Bombengeschwader greifen Mönchengladbach an (Stadtzentrum und Außenbezirke).

Edited by LashL: 
Snipped in accordance with Rule 4. Do not cut and paste lengthy tracts from elsewhere.


Any questions, my esteemed opponents?

This is another nice entry for my blog! To sum it up: the moral case for the Europe-killing Allies is based on quicksand. The Soviet-Union who carried out 80% of the cost of bringing Nazi-Germany down does not exist anymore. The remnants are ready for an approchment with the EU. The other killers US (15%) and UK (5%) are still at large but crumbling. Both are facing financial collapse, see here the state of California. NASA is in the process of being dismantled, the UK about to lose it's largest company BP. The US cannot even get it's 'Dreamliner' flying, their car industry is decimated (the UK does not even produce cars). The US is not winning (meaning losing) their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They basically gave Iraq to the sphere of influence of Iran. America's infrastructure is crumbling, the collapse of the empire could come in a blink of an eye. This is the time to prepare for a New Explanation of what really happened during the 20th centurty and to base a new world view on these insights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Luftwaffe as a tactical rather than a strategic force. It's intended role was to support the army, thus the favouring of dive bombers and twin-engined medium bombers
Click to expand...
One of the big bottlenecks in an attack is moving the artillery to keep up with the front line. In an army that still relied on Horses as the main method of transport it could take a couple of days to move artillery forward and get it into position to fire. Even the BEF that had all motorrised artillery still had problems with the 'big' guns (those over 4.5") One of the nicknames for the 6" artillery was the 'Regimental Road Block' Using aircraft in place of artillery makse sense when you have air superiority and a good supply of aircraft and pilots.

Germany had plenty of day and night fighters to defend its airspace, not to mention radar networks and numerous flak batteries. In regards to the last, in March of 1942 there were 3,970 heavy flak guns defending German cities (at a time when the RAF had not even yet launched its first so-called 'thousand plane' raid). By September 1944 the number had grown to 10,225. Indeed, according to Albert Speer (who certainly was in a position to know these things), of the 19,713 88-mm and 128-mm dual-purpose anti-tank/anti-aircraft flak guns produced between 1942 and 1944, only 3,172 (16%) were allocated to the army for use in the anti-armour role. The rest were pointed skywards at Allied bombers. (Which was a fortunate thing for Allied armoured forces; that's over 16,000 fewer excellent anti-tank guns pointed at them.)
Click to expand...
and in addition to the actual guns there are the thousands of men manning them, all those in the control and direction headquarters, all those fighting fires and rebuilding bridges, repairing railroadds, repairing phone and telegraph lines etc. On top of that are all the aircraft, pilots, fuel ammo, groundcrews and so on tied up in the squadrons defending against the bombing raids that would otherwise be available to ground attack and other offensive duties.
 
9/11-investigator said:
That's true. After most German cities had already been destroyed (purpose: making sure that Poland was handed over to the Soviet-Union) the Germans tried to take revenge:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/V1_(wapen)

De eerste gedocumenteerde V1-aanval op Londen vond plaats op 13 juni 1944, een week na de landing in Normandië.

It was only in 1944 that the Germans resorted to V1/V2 terror tactics.
Click to expand...

So they used magic to pull them out of their asses on that date?
Development of these weapons had been going on for years. First engine trials were in 1940. The first complete V-1 airframe was delivered 30 August 1942. Use of them would have started earlier but the RAF bombed the fixed launch sites in France in 1943 as part of 'Operation Crossbow' before they became operational. Germany was forced to design less obvious portable launch ramps to avoid being bombed again.

As for the V2 specification was laid in 1937, design and construction was ordered in 1938. By late 1941, the Army Research Center at Peenemünde possessed the technologies essential to the success of the A-4. The three key technologies for the A-4 were large liquid-fuel rocket engines, supersonic aerodynamics, gyroscopic guidance and rudders in jet controlActual operational construction began in late 1942.
It takes time to build factories and begin production even after the design in finalised.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So they used magic to pull them out of their asses on that date?
Development of these weapons had been going on for years. First engine trials were in 1940. The first complete V-1 airframe was delivered 30 August 1942. Use of them would have started earlier but the RAF bombed the fixed launch sites in France in 1943 as part of 'Operation Crossbow' before they became operational. Germany was forced to design less obvious portable launch ramps to avoid being bombed again.

As for the V2 specification was laid in 1937, design and construction was ordered in 1938. By late 1941, the Army Research Center at Peenemünde possessed the technologies essential to the success of the A-4. The three key technologies for the A-4 were large liquid-fuel rocket engines, supersonic aerodynamics, gyroscopic guidance and rudders in jet controlActual operational construction began in late 1942.
It takes time to build factories and begin production even after the design in finalised.
Click to expand...

Really? From the same Dutch wikipedia link:

De naam V1 (Duitse afkorting) of V-1 (Engelse afkorting) was een afgeleide van Vergeltungswaffe 1 (Vergeldingswapen). Eigenlijk was de aanduiding Fieseler Fi 103 of FZG-76 (FZG betekende Flak Ziel Gerät ofwel luchtafweerdoelapparaat).

From this I understand that it's original purpose war air defense (against Anglo destruction).
 
Air Defence?
How does that work? It launched on a pre programmed course and after a fixed time the engine cuts so it glides to the ground and explodes. How does that work as an air defence weapon again?
 
TheRedWorm said:
My favorite question for people like 9 is: What piece of evidence or line of reasoning could be presented that would make you finally accept actual history? Usually the response is either ignoring the question, or suggesting something so ridiculous that it could not possibly be presented. I doubt 9 is any different.
Click to expand...


Ignored, I'm not surprised.
 
9/11-investigator said:
* 10. Mai 1940 Englischer Angriff auf Freiburg/Br. (50 Tote)
Click to expand...
As mentioned earlier in this thread, this was actually a German attack which was aimed at Mulhouse in France.

It's not clear why they misidentified the target. Maybe the crew wasn't "Aryan" enough and didn't recognize whether they had crossed the German Rhine. :rolleyes:

Or maybe they had read Heidegger and decided they didn't like it. :boxedin:
 
ddt said:
As mentioned earlier in this thread, this was actually a German attack which was aimed at Mulhouse in France.

It's not clear why they misidentified the target. Maybe the crew wasn't "Aryan" enough and didn't recognize whether they had crossed the German Rhine. :rolleyes:

Or maybe they had read Heidegger and decided they didn't like it. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Typical mendacious lefty reaction. Scans the text until he finds a minor mistake and then zeroes in on it, giving him an excuse to ignore the overall message that is left unchanged by the minor error.

And the message is that it were the Anglos who unleashed the terror bombing campaign as confirmed by many of 'your' historians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom