Jump to content

Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

We should probably work something in about his activities in Japan. -Joseph 02:14, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. At present this only covers Britain and Germany. The Land 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Neutrality disputed for obvious cases of bias in the text. Example:

Curiously, the rhetoric of RAF leaders was not matched by military capability
a euphemism for simply aiming at entire cities in the hope of killing workers, destroying homes, and breaking civilian morale.

119 02:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think thing that this text must have been taken from somewhere else because of its structure. I have tried to fix the first paragraph. See what you think. Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there are no other problems, can we remove the NPOV tag? Oberiko 20:02, 28 Apr 2005(UTC) --taken from history of page PBS

I think that if there is still a problem then perhapse a section not a page NPOV tag would suffice and focus on any addition NPOV problems. BTW The introduction mentions "biological agents". Who used them? Philip Baird Shearer 16:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose to remove the NPOV tag at my next visit, unels sI hear objections. The Land 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

History of the article

Where has the history of this article gone? Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was an article called "Strategic Bombing During World War II" which according to the history on that page was moved by User:Oberiko on 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 to "Strategic Bombing during World War II" On 14:50, 8 Mar 2005 User:Rmhermen changed the link to Strategic Bombing, I changed it to Strategic bombing during World War II today (09:18, 10 Mar 2005) assuming that the article had been moved again,(because there is no article not even a redirect at Strategic Bombing during World War II), but the history of this article shows that only one person has edited it before I did today. 21:34, 18 Feb 2005 User:SoLando -- So what has happened? Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be happening quite a bit. Edit histories seem to be disapearing. I noticed it when my edit of Pathfinders (military) disapeared with the older edit remaining (check history of it). That, until now, has been the only time I've seen evidence of it (though it did happen a few times last year) SoLando 10:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you move the article? If not what change did you make to it? Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's bizzare. Is this likely just a wiki-glitch? Oberiko 13:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never moved the bombing article. I added the text: "indeed, it is widely believed that the bombings had the opposite effect." in the "Gradually, in the face of heavy losses to fighters, anti-aircraft guns, and accidents, the Luftwaffe resorted to night bombing. Targeting had been a problem in daylight; by night it was much more so, and British civilian casualties were heavy. The expected collapse in civilian morale, however, did not eventuate; indeed, it is widely believed that the bombings had the opposite effect." SoLando 11:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daylight targetting

Actually, targetting was easy in daylight, thats why the Americans did it. The problem is that in daylight a slow bomber is a sitting duck unless heavily armoured and escorted by fighters.
The american day bombers such as the B17, B25 and B29 had to sacrifice bombload for guns, and had to learn unwieldy formation flying techniques to survive. The English abandoned daylight raids very early on.
Its true that Harris was blind to the effects on english morale of the Blitz. The Blitz consolidated the Londoners and made there resolve harder. Unfortunately, Harris needed the opposite POV to promote his Area Bombing campaign, and so the blitz morale lesson was simply ignored. The germans reacted in the same way as the Londoners, it just made them more resolved to resist, that and the fact if they had fled there war work the Gestapo would have had something to say about it.
You have to put this into context. The RAF WANTED german morale to collapse, so that became the official POV.

193.131.115.253 11:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Targeting was easy, hitting the target was not, even with the Norton bombsight which was the best the Allies had, particularly if it was overcast. When overcast by day, night bomb using H2S (H2X) and G-H was just as accurate. It was not the bomber's guns or them learning "unwieldy formation flying techniques to survive", it was the P-51 Mustang which made the difference in the American European strategic daylight bombing campaign. The article on the bombing of Tokyo in World War II argues that the usual wind conditions over Japan made high-level precision strategic bombing impractical. Philip Baird Shearer 15:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not logged in

I made the "General Update" change - for some reason, I wasn't logged in :/ Toby Douglass 11:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Title

Since it only deals with Europe, and neglects the boimbing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (to name a few!) I think the title of this article should be changed to Strategic bombing in Europe during World War II or something similar. I think we have too many articles about similar subjects, e.g.

Et cetera. Grant65 (Talk) 16:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Happy to join in edits/merges etc. The Land 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No this article should not be renamed. The article needs to be expanded to include the Far East. At the moment it only touches on the subject of strategic boming in a very general way. There is a difference between "aerial bombing" and "stratigic bombing" because arial bombing include tactical bombing (bombing in support of land and sea forces) as well as stratigic bombing. Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would agree though that "Aerial bombing during World War II" should have links put into it when referring to Strategic bombing.along the lines of "Main article see [Strategic bombing during World War II]". There is also a sections in Bombing of Tokyo in World War II which should be copied (moved?) into this article. Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Phillip, if the above articles deal with "tactical bombing", I would like to know how. It seems to me that they deal purely with strategic bombing. And if this article is to deal with Asia, then it needs section stubs added. But I think my suggestion is a better solution. Grant65 (Talk) 11:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am not against radical surgery on the articles. But I think that an article on tactical bombing and strategic bombing are needed and I think on those two issues there is more than enough material for WWII specific articles. I am not convinced thought that there should be separate articles on strategic bombing for Europe and Asia in WWII.Philip Baird Shearer

Agree with Grant65. Tactical air power is not currently covered in these articles and we have 4 articles on essentially common ground, but with different (and valid) content. It is certainly important that tactical air power is included... wll jsut have a look and see where it might be The Land 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Aerial warfare
Tactical bombing
Close Air Support

answerign my own question. Redards, The Land 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also:
Carpet bombing which should defiantly be merged with area bombardment which ought to be renamed area bombardment (air) to distinguish it from area bombardment (artillery) which the Russians still practice as seen in the First Chechen War. Philip Baird Shearer 14:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Plenty to do. (BTW am now making the NPOV change I mentioned earlier)
The Land 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC) By the way, the article fails to pay off the reference in the lead to strategic bombing by Japan.
--Jerzy•t 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The first bombs that fell on Germany during World War II

The statement should be put in the right place. Xx236 07:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

November 1940 to February 1941 fourteen attacks

The first air raids on London were mainly aimed at the Port of London in the East End of London. From November 1940 to February 1941 fourteen attacks were mounted on ports, nine on industrial targets located further inland and eight on London. In Febrauary 1941, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder persuaded Hitler to switch the focus of the bombing campaign to attacking British ports in support of the Kriegsmarine's Battle of the Atlantic. One last major attack on London happened on 10 May, where many important buildings were destroyed or damaged.

I would like this deleted pragraph in the article, but what is the source for these facts? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You like this paragraph in the article??? Why would you do that? Ths section simply shows that German bombing was mainly focussed on industrial area and does not match the mood of this pro-british biased article, saying 1. "but there is no room to doubt that destroying the will of ordinary people to fight was a major factor, perhaps the major factor" 2. "In Germany, morale collapsed in the face of the bombing campaign" That aside, why are you obstinately refusing to give any casualties? (Coerrect answer: Because the German death toll, 10 to 14 times as high as the British, could give the impression that British bombing was not focussed on military and industrial targets only.)--Number 17 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source for the paragraph what is it please? The total British was around 60,000 not 40,000. The article does not include the dead from after the initial Blitz like the Small Blitz and the strategic missile attacks (V-1 and V-2), nor for that matter does it yet include a section on the important development of such stratigic missile attacks. It is better not to include any figure than to include the wrong figures. So any figures quoted should be sourced.
It is not clear if these figures are for Germany or the Third Reich (as there were about 24,000 victims in Austria[1])
  • United Kingdom http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
    • Keegan: 60,000 (bombing)
    • Urlanis: 60,000
    • HarperCollins: 60,595
    • Ellis: 60,600
    • Britannica: 92,673 (incl. 30,248 merchant mariners and 60,595 killed by bombing)
    • Davies: 92,673
    • Clodfelter: 92,673
    • Eckhardt: 100,000
The British kept accurate records during WWII so I think the 60,595 was the official death toal with 30,248 for the British merchant mariners (most of whom are listed on the Tower Hill Memorial). So all of these figures for the British Blitz dead are between 60-70K. As to you comment on the ratios, Bomber Harris's comment springs to mind "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." --Philip Baird Shearer 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. They(=Nazi leaders) sowed the wind(=accidental raid over London), and now they(=innocent women and children, whose only mistake it was to speak the same language) are going to reap the whirlwind

2. I've got this section from the Article "The Blitz"

3. Casualties: 2 Options a) We include sections "small blitz" and "missile attacks" and mention all 60,000. (preferred!) b) We don't, but say it was 40,000 so far and 60,000 in total.I can't do it, because my edits will be deleted anyway.

4. I want sources on the following claims or I'm going to spent night and day in deleting them: a)"but there is no room to doubt that destroying the will of ordinary people to fight was a major factor, perhaps the major factor" b)"In Germany, morale collapsed in the face of the bombing campaign"--Number 17 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Japan did not develop long-range bombers?

Who wrote this assumption? If you check the specifications of G4M Betty (Japan`s most widely used bomber) and B-17 Flying Fortress you`ll find that the former had about TWICE the range of the latter! The problem with Japanese planes was not the range, but the small bomb payload. The range was actually the Japanese aircrafts` greatest virtue.

Veljko Stevanovich 9. August 2006. 17:07 UTC+1

So that should read "Japan did not develop long range heavy bombers of the type required to wage strategic bombing".GraemeLeggett 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Extent of bombings of Japan

The section on Allied bombing of Japan is nice and long and detailed, describing the development of the strategies and tactics involved in strategic bombing. However, the bombings of Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya, and Tokyo are mentioned only in passing. Though there is some detail given to the firebombing of Kobe, the same treatment is not effected for the other three cities, nor is any mention made of the tens of other cities and strategic targets that were attacked. I have added some of what I think should be here, but I would appreciate it if someone(s) would add more, and reorganize the material to incorporate my additions into the overall flow. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

BOMBINGS ON ITALY.

The RAF started heavy bombings on Italy on October, 24 1942: first target was Milan (150 people died). Rome was attacked for the 1st time on July 19, 1943 (3,000 persons died). In July-August the air raids became heavier and heavier. Especially Naples and Milan were heavy damaged but also Turin, Genoa, Palermo and Rome. The climax was reached on July 22, 1943 and on August 19, 1943 against Foggia: in July died 7,000 people, in August 10,000. One says that if the Kingdom of Italy wasn`t willing to surrender on September 8, 1943 the US-Air Force and the RAF were ready to destroy Rome and Turin: FULLY. Nevertheless bombings took place after the surrender, too. On April 7, 1944 died 2,150 people in Treviso, on Oct.20,1944 died more than 600 people in Milan. Tot.Italian casualties: 70,000+.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.148.58 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 October 2006

Strategic strikeout

I deleted this

"In the rush to rearm in the late 1930s, the British had concentrated their limited resources on fighters which were seen as a defensive measure rather than bombers which were perceived as an offensive weapon."

as misleading & rewrote to reflect the correct attitude, based on Deighton et al. I rewrote this

"knock an enemy out of the war without the need for the stalemate of trench warfare. This had been an important factor in the British adoption of appeasement of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s"

to this

"In addition, it was widely believed there was no defense against bombers (hence the famous quote, "The bomber will always get through."). This, and the fact British bombers lacked the range and numbers to inflict a telling blow on Germany, had been important factors in the British adoption of appeasement of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s."

and this

"with the Luftwaffe being part of the German army and so inherently directly towards short term short range tactical goals intimately tied up with ground-based military operations,

as inaccurate; Luftwaffe was never "part of the German army", & I'm astounded at the claim it was. I corrected "Dowding, head of the RAF"; he was Air Officer in Command, Fighter Commmand, an equally astonishing mistake. I rewrote

" an invasion by ground troops which required air supremacy since this was required to negate the naval supremacy of the British Navy."

as clumsy & inaccurate. I added Macksey note; it's in Invasion or Hitler's Blunders. I added "quite by accident, since the Germans were unaware of it.", from Deighton or Allen. I deleted

"The major part of the battle (up until about September 1940) was almost entirely tactical; the Luftwaffe aimed to prepare the way for an invasion by ground troops, which was believed to require air supremacy, as a counter to Royal Navy command of the sea.[1] Initially, the Luftwaffe concentrated their attacks on airfields and coastal shipping. By chance, Fighter Command had placed sector control stations at their airfields and so the organizational infrastructure of the defense came under heavy attack, quite by accident, since the Germans were unaware of it. This, combined with the loss of pilots, progressively disrupted the effectiveness of the British defense. (In fact, Dowding, AOiC Fighter Command, discovered after the Battle that the pilot training establishments were only operating at two-thirds capacity.)‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]"

as irrelevant to the subject (it belongs in Battle of Britain, not here), & rewrote to

"Toward the end of the Battle of Britain, a lost German bomber crew mistakenly bombed London."

I rewrote to "(most notably airborne radar, as well as deceptive beacons and jammers)." because ASV wasn't the only, or even the main, factor; see Jones' Wizard War. I deleted

"and German industrial production grew much slower than British, American or Russian production."

It was as much a function of Hitler as BC. And more needs doing. Trekphiler 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bombing Effort

oops. Someone forgot to include Canada. No problem. It happens. I've added it. The US 8th Airforce is mentioned but not the US 9th which went to the UK in the fall of 1943. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brocky44 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the US Ninth Air Force was a tactical air force not a stratigic one, so it should not be included on this page. (other than possibly a mention in Operation Clarion, 22 February 1945 (pp.551-552))--Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that between Oct. 1943 and April 1944 the 9th was doing the same as the 8th in the UK as in 1945. Where would the 9th be needed as a tactical airforce before April of 1944? My sources could be wrong. The colour chart of the bombing effort looks like it doesn’t fit if you’re only talking strategic bombing. For one thing the amount of bombs dropped does not agree with the RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany chart. The tonnage dropped, sorties flown and aircrew killed are not only from the strategic bombing of Germany but also tactical and against all enemy targets. I see that you removed Canada. Your reason for that is what? Brocky44 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Ninth Air Force article it explains it, particularly the section "Pre-Invasion Buildup and Operations". Between April and September 1944 the 8th and RAF Bomber Command were taken off stratigic duties and were also involved in tactical support of the invasion.
I Removed Candada, because during World War II the RAF could have been called the "United Nations Air Force", As I said in the edit box when I made the reversal "reverted the last edit because, all other nations, and there were many involved flew under the command of the RAF or the USAAF see for example List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons" --Philip Baird Shearer 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already read the 9th Air Force link here and it doesn’t explain what the 9th was doing before April 1944 in UK other than building up it’s forces, so I guess that was it. Thanks. As for Canada, I understand what you’re saying. They would have had to make their own heavy bombers and bombs and have their own bomber group, represent their own country and fly under Bomber Command like the RAF did with United Nations Air Force crew in order to meet the criteria. Brocky44 06:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m going to try one more time Philip. You said that “I Removed Candada, because during World War II the RAF could have been called the "United Nations Air Force” Surely you are aware that the RAF was the British Airforce which leads me to ask what does your explanation have to do with Canada? Brocky44 03:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons: American, Czechoslovakian, Polish, Dutch, French, Norwegian, Greek, Belgian, Yugoslavan, RCAF, RAAF, and RNZAF sauadrons. I don't know how many of those were in Bomber Command but quite a few were, and the list is missing many other nationalities like South Africans and Empire forces who flew in Bomber command RAF squadrons. For example Dominion personnel from Australia, Canada and New Zealand made up a significant proportion of the initial members of the Dambusters who took part in Operation Chastise. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Dominion…? I know Australia had quite a few in the Dambusters and Canada accounted for 30 of the 133. Many nationalities or rather all of them flew in RAF squadrons, 25% of RAF were RCAF during the war, and were therefore flying for the British. I don’t see what you are trying to establish by pointing out the list of RAF squadrons. The RAF was not RAAF, RCAF or RNZAF. If RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF bomber squadrons were bought and paid for, or made, by their respective nations, flew to and bombed Germany in the name of their country, contained the same mixture of nationalities that made up the RAF and went through the same lengths and pains as the British to achieve the same, how can it be said that they did not conduct strategic bombing? The RCAF had 14 squadrons in its bomber group and contained mostly RCAF air and ground crew personal by the end of the war. No. 6 Group mostly joined in raids with the RAF but also went out on bombing raids over Germany alone without any other RAF squadrons attached and in total dropped one fifth the tonnage on Germany that the US 8th AF dropped. 10,000 RCAF crew died bombing Germany, not as high a number as the British had, 38,000, but a significant number in comparison. The only difference between the US and Canadian strategic bombing of Germany, other than size, is that the RCAF was under (RAF) Bomber Command, the same as the RAF. I don’t see how you think that being under a higher Command means that those under that Command should not be mentioned. If that’s the case we should go to the Wiki D-Day article and strike Canada from that history as well. Brocky44 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See Dominion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There were two independent Allied commands involved in the strategic bombing offensive over Europe and one against Japan. I think that introducing other nations into the lead is a mistake. It clutters up the lead and is not very informative. If we go that way then every country that had a man who flew on one strategic bombing mission will be able to justify their country in the lead with a "me too" argument and then we will end up with a list that contains almost every Axis and Allied nation. Far better that the credit and damnation is laid at the doors of the principle decision makers, which for the men who flew under the operational command of the RAF was the British high command. There is no reason why there should not be a paragraph (or even a section) added to this article, or the RAF Bomber Command article, that explains the composition of Bomber Command rather than all the countries that contributed to the European campaign are put in the lead sentence. There is a further complication that most of the figures for dead, tonnage dropped etc by the RAF is not broken down by nation. IMHO there is far too much of this "me too" listing of countries in Wikipedia articles, for example I have argued against the inclusion of British in the Battle of the Bulge because it distorts the articles battle boxes and introductions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

Web searches show "the economy of Taiwan was still recovering from heavy Allied bombing during the Second World War." Therefore please mention Taiwan. Jidanni 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Strategic Bombing over Germany

According to the book Dirty Little Secrets of WWII by James F. Dunnigan, Allied planners dismissed the bombing of Germany's power grid, believing them to be too heavily redundant and not worth the effort to attack. However (also according to the book) post-war analysis found that bombing the power supply would have have actually crippled Germany's war machine in a matter of months and brought about an early end to the conflict. Anyone want to check this out and write it into the article? Masterblooregard 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We should change the title

"Strategic bombing" is not NPOV. It is a military euphemism. An encyclopedia shoudl have a neutral term. "bombing of cities"? I'm not sure if that covers it "Bombing of civilians" ? 193.51.149.216 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we should not change the title. There were two types of bombing, strategic aimed at strategic targets far behind the front lines, and tactical bombing aimed as supporting ground operations with targets close to the front lines. Neither description is an euphemism for anything else. To take a clear cut example what else would you call an attacks made with Grand Slams as they were clearly not used on civilian targets or cities? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

USAAF POV

I don't think the hidden comment made by editor Philip Baird Shearer is needed within the Conventional Bombing of Japan section. The paraphrased portions of the USAAF report point out that they shouldn't have required as great of a bombing effort to defeat Japan; that they could have used a smaller force with a different focus than firebombing of cities. The report also criticizes the bomber command's failure to coordinate their operations with the Navy's anti-shipping submarine campaign so as to choke Japan's merchant shipping earlier and more completely. Both conclusions are hardly a ringing endorsement of a separate Air Force arm. Other conclusions drawn elsewhere within the report aren't presented here in this article. Binksternet 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate over whether (conventional) bombing alone could win the war was raging before and through World War II, and continues down to today. A report by a party to the campaign with one eye on Congresses's piggy bank is not the most unbiased of sources. They were hardly likely to issue a report that said "bombing of strategic targets proved to be ineffective and morally bankrupt so we recommend that the soon to be created USAF be stripped of a strategic wing and remain a tactical adjunct of the U.S. Army". My comment is hidden because we should no put into articles OR, but a comment about this is needed to balance the USAAF's self serving assessment as it is a blatant non neutral point of view -- even though I happen to think that there is a lot of truth in what they wrote. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed your hidden comment. The section of the Bombing Survey I cited has nothing to do with pushing for a separate Air arm. In fact, the report says the bombing effort against Japan was too large and too independent! These are not the facts one would use to convince naysayers of the need for a separate Air Force. Binksternet 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am putting it back. It is a report by an organisation about itself and is known to be controversial. I think in this case it is best to keep it as a hidden comment rather than an section NPOV. But if you insist on removing it I think it will be necessary to slap such a template on the section. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Known to be controversial" by whom? The Strategic Bombing Survey page doesn't reek of such a controversy. Controversial or not, how does that affect the simple facts listed in this instance? Once again, this citation is one in which the USAAF comes to the conclusion that they were too big and too independent; proof that could be used against the USAAF's very existence. Somehow your warning of POV falls away at this point. The hidden comment tilts at windmills. Binksternet 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial for the Army and Navy for a start[2]. The same controversy surrounded the setting up of the RAF, it did during WWII (see the dehousing memo, and still does (for the RAF). Should there be an independent air arm capable of its own strategic initiatives, or should air power be a primarily a tactical adjunct of the two other services. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I do not have access to the full survey but assuming that the the SUMMARY REPORT is an accurate reflection of the report and it does not support you inferance for example see the section Hindsight
  • Upon entering the war, we were deficient not only in numbers, but in quality of many of our aircraft types. We were forced thereafter into hasty and costly modification and technical development programs to raise the performance of our aircraft to acceptable standards. These programs could have been conducted more efficiently and economically during prewar years.
  • We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion.
Also Integration of our military establishments
  • Within a department of common defense which provides unity of command and is itself oriented toward air and new weapons, the Survey believes that, in addition to the Army and the Navy, there should be an equal and coordinate position for a third establishment.
Which speaks for itself --Philip Baird Shearer 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

British "deeply psychologically affected" by First World War bombs

"The British had been deeply psychologically affected by the German strategic bombing campaign of World War I. It was the first time in hundreds of years London had been successfully attacked by an enemy"

This sentence strikes me as needing amendment or removal. It stands out in what is otherwise a very concisely and carefully written article. I can see three things wrong with it:

1. I doubt it's correct. In the First World War, London suffered a few bombs dropped by Zeppelins, and North Sea coastal towns were shelled by German navy. No other part of Britain was affected so I can't see how the British as a whole were likely to have been psychologically affected, let alone 'deeply'.

2. The relevance of any psychological hurt is not explained in the article.

3. 'hundreds of years' is literally true, but a bit extravagant. London was attacked during the Civil War, three hundred years before. Why not just state that?

I suggest that this claim be referenced or deleted 219.89.16.15 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. Binksternet 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

London was not attacked during the Civil War. The attackers got no closer than Turnham Green. If one assumes that the propaganda of the Glorious revolution is true, then the last attack by a hostile state (before WWI) that threatened London was the Dutch raid on the Medway in June 1667 during Second Anglo-Dutch War.

The sentence is not at all a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" it school text book history in the UK, and is one of the standard reasons given for British appeasement during the 1930s. The assumption was that "the Bomber will always get through" and that poison gas coupled with calculations of the number of dead from the World War I raids with high explosives that the results would be something like those not realised until the use of atomic bombs -- The best way of seeing this view in the modern world is the Cold War doctrine of MAD coupled to the psychological reaction of the Americans to the World Trade Center bombings.

Here are a Googled selection of URLs relating to this subject:

On May 23, 1917, a fleet of 21 Gothas appeared over the English coastal town of Folkestone. On the deadliest day of bombing yet, 95 people were killed, and England began to panic. At noon on June 13, another Gotha fleet dropped bombs onto London. For the next month, the daily raids on the capital city met with little opposition from the Royal Air Force, angering the population of London. Production levels within the city dropped. Citizens felt that their government was incapable of protecting them. They demanded that the military protect them and stop the bombs. They felt exposed and helpless, just as German military strategists had hoped they would.
After Hitler came to power in 1933, Britain had to decide how best to respond to the threat he posed. Britain had a very small army. The Chancellor of Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, opposed any funding for an army to fight overseas. Chamberlain wanted funding for air power which he considered a more effective deterrent against enemy attack. In the 1930s the theory was developed, as mentioned earlier, that nothing could stop modern bombers. The increased speeds of the bombers reduced the time taken to reach the target, and because they flew higher this made it impossible to send fighters in the air in time to intercept the bomber force. If the bombers were intercepted, their heavy armament would enable them to defeat the attackers. It was a convincing argument, especially because it coincided with the need to save money because of the Great Depression, and the difficulty Governments faced in paying for mass unemployment. This was also the time of the famous 'Peace Ballot' and the Oxford Union debate on not fighting for King and Country. People in Britain felt very strongly that anything was better than another war - and the Bomber Theory suggested that the bomber might prevent another war.
Many military thinkers believed that in any major conflict of the future vast fleets of bombers, pounding the enemy's capital to rubble, would decide the issue in a matter of hours. In 1932 Stanley Baldwin, then a prominent member of the government, gloomily told the House of Commons, 'I think it is well for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through. The only defence is offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourself.'
  • Derek Benjamin Heater Our World This Century Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199133247 p 69
In fact, by the beginning of World War II, the RAF air staff estimates of civilian deaths reached the astronomical level of 72 per ton of bombs (W. Hays Parks, “Air War and Law of War,” The Air Force Law Review, No 32, 1990, 118. p.48). In supplying this knowingly or unknowingly vastly inflated casualty figure to His Majesty’s government, the air staff may well have encouraged those who counseled appeasement. Such seemingly authoritative numbers could only have weighed heavily on the mind of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain during the Munich crisis of 1938—a supposition confirmed by Winston Churchill when he wrote in October 1941, “Before the war we were greatly misled by the pictures they painted of the destruction that would be wrought by air raids. This is illustrated by the fact that 750,000 beds were actually provided for air raid casualties, never more than 6,000 being required. The picture of destruction was so exaggerated that it depressed the statesmen responsible for the pre-war policy and played a definite part in the desertion of Czecho-Slovakia in August 1938.”(Churchill to chief of the air staff, Sir Charles A. Portal, 7 October 1941, PRO AIR 8/258.).

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

British Attack

“Despite an ever-increasing tonnage of bombs dispatched, the inaccuracy of delivery was such any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes”

I’ve asked for a citation for this before and would be interested in knowing where this idea of a “hit” came from. The Butt report?

“inaccuracy of delivery” might make some think of the accuracy of bombs released on an indicated target and should be changed. The low percentage of bomb hits within 5 miles of the target was the result of bomber crews being unable to find the intended target and releasing their bombs on a different aiming point. I think the article should better explain the failure rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky44 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Butt report article explains this with citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I’ve read the Butt report here again and still can’t find any explanation. Also read other versions or parts of the Butt report elsewhere, probably never a full version. If no sources like the Butt report or the RAF or someone of authority is shown to have said that then the line should be removed. Brocky44 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources given in the Butt report says:
As the British War Cabinet was reassessing the role of Bomber Command, it had, for the first time, compelling empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the Command’s raids. Mr David Butt made an examination of over six hundred photographs showing the accuracy of more than four thousand aircraft. He found that on average just one-third of all bombs fell within five miles of the centre of the target. But if he confined his study to the inland, industrial haze-covered Ruhr on moonless nights, then only 7 or 8 per cent fell within five miles of the target. As Butt did not include those aircraft that did not bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or simply getting lost, the reality was that about 5 per cent of bombers setting out bombed within five miles of a target. On these figures several conclusions were obvious. To keep losses to an acceptable level, the bombers had to fly on moonless nights, but in those conditions precision bombing in Germany was impossible. Only broad areas of several square miles could be hit, and that meant cities. To be effective, the raids required hundreds of bombers to saturate the defences and to ensure that a sufficient density of bombs fell within the target area.
Although he had access to the underlying data (so he could have chosen any arbitrary distance) D. M. Butt chose to compare bombs that dropped within 5 miles of the target against those outside. So with the statistics he produced those that fell within five miles were compared with those outside, therefor I think it reasonable and not misleading to sum this up as a hit for statistical purposes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just checked Longmate one of the other sources used in the But report article. To quote him "A bomb only had to be dropped within five miles of the aiming-point to count as a hit, which meant, as he pointed out, anywhere within an areas of 75 square miles, or in terms of London, though he did not make the comparison, that a bomb aimed at the Houses of Parliament would have been counted as a being on target if it had landed on Streatham Common, Hammersmith Broadway Or the East India Dock Road (Longmate, Norman; The Bombers: The RAF offensive against Germany 1939-1945; Pub. Hutchinson; 1983; ISBN 0091515807. pp. 120,121)." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bombing on Russia

The Germans had a bombing campaign in Russia during WWII. Moscow and St.Petersburg were quite heavily bombed at certain points during WWII. I think this aspect needs to be included in this article but I myself have little information on the subject. In short I am asking for someone else to do this.

Both cities were also attacked by land forces, so was it tactical bombing or strategic bombing? For example in Caen's suburbs were carpet bombed by strategic bombers but that was a tactical not a strategic raid. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Portsmouth?

Is the list at the foot of the page supposed to include all cities that suffered serious bombing? If so it should include Portsmouth, England. 68.44.187.12 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians

The numbers include non-German forced workers. Xx236 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Amsterdam draft international rules"

"The British government ordered the RAF to adhere strictly to the Amsterdam draft international rules " -- Could a link to additional info on this please be added to the article? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

image usage

This article currently contains an animated gif entitled AlliedOfensiveInGermany.gif. This image is not suitable to the article as it shows tactical engagement rather than strategic and therefore is not relevant to the article. If there are no objections then i will go ahead and delete it. Deckchair (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Google search URLs for references

I just deleted a bunch of google searches that had been used in place of book titles. The books need to be cited without a search URL. Template: Cite book has more information. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam Tooze

Are there any plans to incorporate his findings?Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Scandals?

Why is this page filed under "Military scandals"? While debate as to the justification for certain aspects of the policy, particularly the saturation bombardments conducted by Britain over Germany and the US over Japan, I do not see how this would qualify it as a "scandal." All parties were operating within both their own domestic laws and international treaties. Further, this article discusses the subject from a purely military point of view. Political and ethical considerations are barely mentioned. "Military scandals" should be reserved, IMO, for grave negligence or a clear violation of the chain of command that endangers civilians. I don;t see how this qualifies. LordShonus (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Category removed. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro is short

I concur. However, it is short in content, the length should not be much longer than two small paragraphs more, I would suggest. The intro talks about terror bombing, land-air coordinated assaults and the escalation of potency and effectiveness, but what it needs is briefly mention is the oil bombing and resource war, as well as the attack on manufacturing. There needs to be more discussion of the pacific theatre in the intro.--Npovshark (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Image "Chongqing bombed" looks very fake

This picture provides no link to its source, and if you examine it closely, the buildings in the lower left look as though they were superimposed over the smoke, particulary the left building as it "disappears" into the smoke. With that much "smoke", which all appears to have occurred shortly before the picture was taken since the smoke does not extend out of frame, where are the explosions and fire? The picture resides on other pages in a very large role. Can anyone argue that this image is original and not modified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.189.64.96 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly suspicious to my (admittedly untrained) eye. If Hi-Ex was used rather than Incendiaries then would there be widespread fire? Deckchair (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a copyright violation anyway: [3], which I've tagged on commons. Hohum (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe info out of balance

A lot of new information (~19 kb) is being added to the article today, and all of it is about Europe. Tables that don't have Japan information, assessments of morale and effectiveness that aren't global... Why don't we keep this article balanced regarding the various strategic bombing efforts? The other solution, of course, is to split the article into one central and two daughter articles, one for Europe and one for Asia. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Today I rearranged some stuff and actually reduced the size of Europe section in the article.--Npovshark (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, there is a doubled region of text. Probably a copy-paste error. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
<sigh> npovshark seems to have copy pasted twice, which also reverted most of the changes I'd just made (although he tried to re-insert them again, partially successfully). I don't have the patience to pick through it again and fix this, can't undo easily because of all of the subsequent edits... Do we revert to my last edit and let npovshark re do his edits, or lose mine? Hohum (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Hohum.--Npovshark (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I've reintroduced my previous edits without undue pain ;) Hohum (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic progression

' There were further minor attacks on London at night in August, on the 18/19, 22/23, 24/25, 25/26 and 28/29[citation needed]; the raid on night of 22/23 August, first Luftwaffe raid on central London, was described as 'extensive' by British observers.[35] On August 24, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed residential areas of London.[36][37][38][39]The next day, the RAF bombed Berlin for the first time, sending Hitler into a rage.[40][41][42] Targets included Tempelhof airfield and the Siemens factories in Siemenstadt.[43] A swift change in German policy followed.[44][45][46][47]The Luftwaffe, which Hitler had prohibited from bombing civilian areas in the UK, was now ordered to bomb British cities. The Blitz was underway.[48]

The recently added sentence, in bold, has poor grammar and does not fit in with the facts given in the next line by sources which are viewable, and also goes against the conventional understanding of the escalation of the bombing war. The uncited lines about previous raids also go against this standard view. I am noting that the source for the sentence in italics is not retrievable online. Any suggestions about what we should do here? --Npovshark (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith and change the grammar, if you are able to without distortion of the sense of the text. Unless you can prove that Overy's wrong, the facts provided in following lines were probably not too much carefully checked by their authors. Conventional understanding is hardly a good argument. Overy's Battle of Britain is almost certainly viewable, when someone's not visually impaired and has access to a public library. See also something on verifiability rules. The source has not to be retrievable online. --ja_62 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you are unable to see the problem of three sources saying the residential areas of London were accidently bombed for the first time on August 24th, but one source saying that London was already bombed "extensively" on the 22nd and 23rd...
Sorry, but upon further review, I'm afraid I cannot assume good faith. It isn't that I doubt the author, it isn't that I believe the author's statements are being misrepresented, either; however, I have found nothing online which suggests or even mentions that there were bombings of residential areas in cities before the 24th and everything I have found suggests it began on the 24th. For example: [4] Before the 24th, beginning on the 13th, German planes were targeting coastal installations and airfields. This is why it is odd for London to have been hit four or five times, and "extensively" at that. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe was under strict orders not to hit London...the planes that did on the 24th could not find their targets, and struck unknowingly. This latter detail is a common fact, but you asked for sources and I found 3. Are you sure Overy is being represented correctly?--Npovshark (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The extensive bombing of the 22nd 23rd does not necessarily refer to residential (suburban or urban) bombing. The docks and warehouses further along the Thames could be "extensively bombed" and all that would mean is there was a lot of bombing and they hit a lot of places. Assuming "Extensive" is from a contemporary source (the choice of observers suggests this) then the phrase has to be taken in context of the time. Eg Looking back over the course of the war, we could that "the bombing of Y on .... was light but mid-19xx it was extensively bombed" meaning that on the first occasion there were 20 medium bombers and on the latter 150 heavy bombers. The other question would be what is meant by London here, inner London (the old County of London), the London Water Board area or the London Civil Defence Region? I think these points need to be addressed before removing information with a source that can be checked.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Patric Bishop in Bomber Boys writes on page 16 "In the first two months of the air war, 1,333 people were killed as German bombs missed their targets or were scattered at random when the raiders headed for home. On the night of 24 August the first bombs fell on central London and a fortnight later it experienced its first heavy bombardment. That month 6,334 civilians were killed all over Britain...", my emphasis. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can recall (I'm commuting, and I won't have time to check my copy of Overy's book till Saturday), Overy does not specify what was target of previous nights raids. (He names "Croydon, Wimbledon and the Maldens" for the 18/19 August and "central London" for the night of 22/23 August) As for the size of raid as "extensive", I would suggest, that in given context, it simply means that this raid was larger than previous ones.

Overy in general points out that with era's technology, precision bombing of military targets in urban areas was impossible (for both sides), and August 23/24 accident was nothing novel for London. Overy is suggesting that importance of 23/24 night accident was rather singled out post-factum (because of British retaliation raid of 25/26 August and following change in the course of events) as widely accepted rationale explaining shifting of targets of Luftwaffe raids - which was, in fact, far more complex process.--ja_62 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources presented here do not suggest that it was anything other than a simple process of escalation. For example p. 259 Norman Moss in Nineteen Weeks, implies that just as had been predicted by theorists before the war deterrent was the best defence for cities and that the bombing of cities gradually escalated in tit for tat retaliation, with both sides hoping that their enemy would stay their hands and not escalate the bombardment further by heeding the warning they gave in their latest attack on the enemy. In hind sight given the personalities of the leaders of the two priciple antagonists, no warning was going to deter the other party so as neither side backed down, it lead to unrestricted strategic aerial warfare in the European theatre.
So the bombing of the 24/25 was a very important date because it lead directly to the RAF bombing of Berlin and Hitler's famous speech where he promised to drop 1000s of kilos in retaliation for every kilo dropped by the British on German cities the night of the 23/24 was less significant but still a step on the road to unrestricted strategic aerial warfare. --PBS (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked up my copy of Overy, and he does not provide more detailed description than dates I've already mentioned here. As for the importance of 24/25 night he rather suggests that: "The raids on Berlin were in reality retaliation for the persistent bombing of British conurbations and the high level of British civilian casualties that resulted."

May be the August 24/25 night accident was the 'last straw' contributing to British decision to retaliate, but Overy doesn't say this expressly. --ja_62 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Overy may not but Moss is specific (and it ties into other things I have read) "[After some sporadic raids on the outskirts of London] On the night of 24-25, two of a group of bombers attacking the docks dropped their bombs on central London. No one was killed but one bomb damaged the historic St. Giles Church in Cripplegate. In response the War Cabinet ordered raids on Berlin and several other German cities ...". So if a more specific source than Overy is needed that can be added as a citation. --PBS (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

Death toll includes British civilians only. Soviet, Polish and other losses are not included in Allied side. Please update.--Gwinndeith (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing

I have rewritten the article on Terror bombing shifting the emphasis from yet another article on aerial bombardment to focus on the use of the term. For those of you developing this article there may be some useful sections or sources contained with the terror bombing article before I reworked it. Terror bombing (at 16:23, 16 May 2009) --PBS (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

disputed addition

I'm attempting to prevent edit-warring by bringing this here. The following text has been added twice anbd reverted twice (I did the most recent revert): "The Germany did not have a policy of terror bombing civilians as part of the doctrine prior to World War II and the Luftwaffe leadership specifically rejected the concept of terror bombing in the inter war period.[2] -

Standing instructions for the Luftwaffe at the start of the war forbade any entrance into Western airspace for combat aircraft, with the exception of reconnaissance missions, and strictly adhered to international laws of war.[4] Terror attacks, and the initiation of an unrestricted air warfare were forbidden.[5][6][7][8] Following the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declaration of war by the Western Allies, in Hitler's OKW Direktive Nr 2 and Luftwaffe Direktive Nr 2 made no mention of strategic bomber raids, while attacks upon enemy naval forces were permitted only if the enemy bombed Germany, with the exception in the German Bight, noting that "The guiding principle must be not to provoke the initiation of aerial warfare on the part of Germany"; by contrast, Göring's directive permitted restricted attacks upon warships anywhere, as well as upon troop transports at sea.[9]

Is there a consensus as to whether this should or shouldn't be in the article? Dawn Bard (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not as it is right now. First - primary sources are not to be used. Second, Corum's assertion about what the orders might have been need to be qualified with what actually happened. I'm sure those orders looked great on paper. Third, the asymmetry in Nazi policy towards Western European countries and Poland needs to also be addressed for context.radek (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
On a matter of sources - primary sources are not used, they are added for additional reference: they are referred to, and are also quoted by the authors of the secondary sources. As to what actually happened, these should be touched briefly in the particular sections about the Strategic bombing in Poland, *if reliable sources could be provided for these assertions*. Same case about the assymetry 'the asymmetry in Nazi policy towards Western European countries and Poland' specifically about to the aerial strategy employed, not just in the general sense. It seems that referenced information is challenged on the basis of heresay. Kurfürst (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Stategic bombing in the Polish campaign, 1939.

Several pieces of unreferenced propagandistic material (specific targeting of hospitals, civillian housing, strafing civillians etc. etc.) was added to the introduction of the article, and citations were requested for these. Radeczk added references, but cross checking the sources showed these were false, and the sources do not support at all these assertions. Some examples:

  • Claim of civilian infrastructures being targeted: Source given as 'A long way home', by Bob Golan, Jacob Howland, Bette Howland, p. 11. The source quotes eyewitnesses and bystanders, who state a bomb struck [i]one[/i] civillian house a blocks again, and that 'people said it was aimed at the policy station accross the street, but the planes missed their target'. Although guesswork of civillians, however honest they are, cannot give a good clue about the actual intentions (these could be find in LW operational orders on the targets selected for the day and unit), the source has been clearly misused by Radeczk.
  • Claim of bombing hospitals. 'Jews in Eastern Poland and the USSR, 1939-46', by Antony Polonsky, Norman Davies. An eyewitness on the ground states he experienced LW bombing in Radom, and claims the bombing was 'mainly aimed at civillian housing'. No mention of hospitals. Same problems as previously, it would require psyichic skills to know from the ground what was being aimed at. ApAp

Apart from that these sources have been clearly misused, none of them contains reliable information, as they come from books dealing with other subjects. No specifics are given about the date and place of these alleged incidents, no references are given in the books, and there is no sign of research appears in them to find out operational orders for LW formations, that would show that these reported incidents were of intentional or accidental in their nature. Kurfürst (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my references. The bombing of the hospital is referenced to an article by Sylwia Slonminska from a site ran by the History Institute at the University of Lodz. Direct quote: "Pierwszy zbombardowano szpital pw. Wszystkich Świętych, mimo że był on ozna­czony znakami Czerwonego Krzyża i zgodnie z konwencjami międzynarodowymi podlegał szczególnej ochronie." Translation: "The first to be bombed was the All-Saints hospital, despite the fact that it was marked with the insignia of the Red Cross and according to international conventions was subject to special protection". The Golan et al. source states specifically "The German bombers intensified their raids and civilian buildings were not spared". I think that's a pretty clear ref for fact that civilian infrastructures were bombed. The Davies and Polonsky cite clearly references the bombing of civilian population - that's why you didn't find anything about hospital in it. In the future, please avoid inflammatory language which refers to others legit edits as "propaganda".radek (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that these cites want to justify to notion of intentional attacks on civillian housings, hospitals etc.: 'From the beginning of the war the German Luftwaffe engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities[12], bombing civilian infrastructures[13], targeting hospitals[11] as well as civilian population[14] and refugees[12][15][16]' The text claims that the LW targeted these, yet none of the cited references speak or provide evidence for such intention, one specifically states the opposite, ie. that the LW target a police station (valid target), but the bombs fell away and hit housing, against the intention of the bombers. The sentence is also in the wrong place, it violates NPOV to start the article with some very dubious, emotive claims, which are not supported by your own sources. IF you wish to include these claims in the article, they should be
  • placed in the proper section (ie. first section)
  • make it clear that there is no evidence (such evidence would be existing, verifiable LW orders authorizing targets of civillian nature) that these incidents were intentional
'In the future, please avoid inflammatory language which refers to others legit edits as "propaganda".' - you mean your own edits like this, that removed whole passages of referenced text and labeled them 'German propaganda'? Tut-tut. Kurfürst (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes Kurfürst, it was clear Nazi German war propaganda, no doubts...--Jacurek (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I presume you also have sources for this - or none at all...? Kurfürst (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

This needs to be updated. Missing significant number of Polish civilians killed.--Jacurek (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy at the start of the war

The following sourced passage describing German bombing policy at the start of the war has been removed by User:Radeksz and User:Dawn Bard:

See Above

I don't see any reason why it should not be included. The section describes the bombing policy of powers at the start of WW2; it omits the German policy altogether, which has been added, supported by reliable secondary sources (Spetzler, Corum, Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase), with the primary sources from BA-MA listed in these secondary sources also given. Also see section on the talk page about 'Terror bombing'. I don't see any reason not to include the German policy as well; including only the policy of the other side distorts the information. Kurfürst (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include a sentence or two on what the stated policy of Nazi Germany was at the beginning of the war and cite it to Corum (or others) and then mention that this policy for whatever reason was not followed then that's fine. Including a huge paragraph complete with a quote which really belongs in Wikisource is definitely undue weight - particularly since even the sections on British and US policy are no more than a couple sentences. Basically this kind of text needs 1) to be proportionate in length and at the same time 2) provide some context.radek (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to use the emotive propaganda term "Terror Bombing" in the section Policy at the start of the war and it defiantly should not be used in the section Legal considerations as it is not a legal term. I am sure there is a need to include the German position in the "Legal considerations" section at all particularly given what is written by Jeffrey Legro in Cooperation under fire page 105. The point of the section is to explain that the position under international law was not clear and include a link to an article about that. I do not think that the section "Legal considerations" needs to contain country specific information at the start of the war as that information is better off in the "Policy at the start of the war" section.
The reason why Germany's position at the start of the war was not mentioned in the section "Policy at the start of the war" was because the sources I used when adding the section on the 3 May this year, did not contain specific mention of the Axis powers (and not much about France) because they are books which specifically deal with the RAF. To include Germany policy at the start of the war and to keep the sections balanced mentioning Germany can follow the level of details as described by Hank Nelson in Chased by the Sun page 104. --PBS (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


the edit is not correct because there is a quote attached to the sentence which was not made by the Germans, but by the two western Allies.

So I suggest that we replace that and the rest of the text recently added to that section with:

Germany too agreed to abide by Roosevelt's request and explained their bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was a fortified city (Nelson page 104]).

If we can find a source that states that their attacks on other cities were justified under the pretext that they were tactical attacks and so not covered by the agreement, then we can add that as well. --PBS (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst unless you are going to engage in a conversation on the talk page to reach a consensus I will do as I suggested above. --PBS (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Its fine with, sorry for the delay answering. Kurfürst (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of properly cited information - mediation is required

Some editors - User:Jacurek and User:Radeksz - resort to one-sided removal of properly cited information from reliable secondary sources without any beforehand discussion, describing them in inflammatory terms as 'German propaganda' (oddly enough, given most of the information come from respected Anglo-Saxon authors), and replace them with information from dubious websites, or insert incorrect information without any source for it, and later 'support' them with references that do not match the claims put forward in the article, again without any discussion beforehand. This kind of editorial 'approach' seems to be clearly against several of wikipedia's policies (ie. reliable secondary sources vs unreliable websites, removing of cited information, refusal to cooperate) and as such, such edits are strongly objected. In order to avoid an unnecessary edit war, I suggest a moratory on further editing of this article, removal of the dubious/debated editions, and seek help of an impartial mediator, unless User:Jacurek and User:Radeksz shows more willingness appetite for consensus or discussion. Kurfürst (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: why would you insert a very long description of Germany's pre-war policy of bombing only non-civilian targets without an appropriate explanation of why Germany soon chose to move beyond such policies? It looked to me like the work of a German apologist. Jacurek and Radeksz appear to me to be working toward a more balanced viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Question: why do you claim that 'Germany soon chose to move beyond such policies' - without any evidence of this presented?
And to answer your question - 'a very long description of Germany's pre-war policy of bombing only non-civilian targets' - appear to be what the vast majority of of the most respected and authoritive Western historians of the subject (Corum, Hinchcliffe, Collier, Hooton, Smith and Creek, and not even mentioning any German historians here, altough there are excellent works on the subject) all agree with, as do the impartial French observers in Poland, and not the notion that this would have happened. That Jacurek and Radeksz believes otherwise is fine, but Wikipedia sources itself on respected historians, not the personal opinion of editors.
I cannot share your POV of the activities of Jacurek and Radeksz. Calling cited references from respected authors 'German propaganda', removing them completely without trying to even discuss or present alternative or evidence seems to me anything 'a more balanced viewpoint' as you call it. It is certainly not wikipedia policy. It seems that their 'editorial work' here revolves around removing anything and everything not to their liking, without bothering themselves with the burden of discussing it, seeking consensus or providing reliable secondary sources for it. These kind of edits are IMHO unacceptable. Kurfürst (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm, no there's plenty of sources and evidence provided for the claim. Additionally you seem to be adding spurious 'dubious' tags to text that is cited to reliable sources without explanation. Yes, I added such tags as well but that's because there really was something dubious about the text you inserted - a supposed bombing of a place which yet did not exist (I don't know if you're misquoting the source here of if the source is being sloppy). Also please stop calling edits and comments you disagree with 'POV' and 'propaganda' when not appropriate as that creates a battleground atmosphere. Also the only source that was removed was the almost-primary source from the Nuremberg trial - even if it can be considered "secondary" it's still pretty undue and missing the context. I've left all other sources you inserted into the article, only added additional, sourced information for context. So please, don't mischaracterize other editors' edits. You've engaged in removal of images for no reason what so ever except apparently a "I don't like it" [5] argument. Finally, what the German policy was in the inter war period is irrelevant. What it was on Sept 1, 1939 can be stated in one sentence and the rest of the text should be about how this stated policy never applied in the invasion of Poland (as shown by reliable sources).radek (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys if this will sound a little rude but I will not discuss anything with somebody who inserts dubious tags[[6]] and questions the fact that Nazi Germany in 1939 bombed Polish civilian infrastructure and Polish and Jewish civilians, just a as I would never discuss anything with Holocaust deniers.--Jacurek (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek, the best way, in my opinion, to deal with inaccuracy (wilful or not), is to engage with reasoning and facts, so I implore you to do this. Hohum (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, no problem, if you do not wish to participate in the consensus finding process, we will respect your choice and it will proceed without you, although it would be better if you would consider the advice Hohum just gave you. Alas, I have to ask you stop with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks such as above. Dear Radek, I will respond to ur thoughts later. Kurfürst (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Airmen lost on strategic combat missions

There was a phrase in the intro that said 100,000 airmen lost their lives. It seemed to apply to the US strategic bombing of Japan, where only 414 B-29s and US 80 fighters were lost on combat missions; a maximum of 4634 possible airmen dead. Some airmen survived the loss of their aircraft, and many B-29s went to Japan with less than 11 men on board. Binksternet 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See the reference, it is a book about Bomber Harris so it is likely to be total losses or total losses in the European theatre. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Richard Overy in Bomber Command (page 204) reports 57,582 RAF Bomber Command airman deaths during WWII, some 72.7% of total casualties (79,172) within that organization. I'll try to find death totals for each country that performed offensive strategic bombing missions but the 100,000 number in the article seems at this point likely to be a worldwide total of either all Allied deaths or combined Allied plus the lesser number of Axis airman deaths over England and China. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, PBS. 100-160k Allied airmen in ETO alone is higher than I had expected. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources that cite 160,000. A Google search on [160,000 casualties strategic bombing Germany] returns a number of other reliable sources. One of which is "On the History of Man-made Destruction: Loss, Death, Memory, and ..." which is a pay per view article, but Google peek inside and quotes "A high figure of nearly 160000 total British and American losses appears in the ‘United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (European War)" And with that lead I looked in the report and found this sentence "The number of men lost in air action was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. [Note: All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative.] More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair."[7]

The two numbers added together come to 158,546 which is probably where the figure of 160,000 comes from in the two sources I have quoted. But as the Note notes "All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative." then if Overy is correct we should reduce the RAF figure from 79,281 --which appears to be total casualties within the RAF -- to Bomber Command airman deaths during WWII 57,582, then we end up with 79,265 and 57,582 RAF Bomber Command which is 136,847. So I guess we need to put in a range footnote this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

I doubt U.S. bomber crew casualties were so much higher than BC's; I'd guess that 79K is total USAAF ETO, just as RAF's. I'll have a peek at a source & see if I can get a better number. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I fought the law

Adding this section (since it seems to me some mention is appropriate), I wonder if the Hague Cons ever defined what a military target was, & if weapons factories were included. I also wonder if there should also be broader examination of the legal/moral issues, raised in part here. Thoughts? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question please read Aerial area bombardment and international law, it explains the law and lack of law in detail. If you wish to look up more then the internal and external links are provided there.
BTW there is a hidden comment comment in the Marshall inquiry in the bombing of Dresden article after the sentence "The inquiry concluded that by the presence of active German military units nearby, and the presence of fighters and anti-aircraft within an effective range, Dresden qualified as 'defended'." which is Probably for compliance with the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938. Art 2. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/910f79361f226492c125641e004057ed?OpenDocument . I put it in that way because I have no conclusive evidence that was the reason that the Marshal inquiry included it, but it seems too much of a coincidence and it makes sense to leave it as a hidden comment in case some one is tempted to remove the sentence as not relevant.
In answer to including a broader examination: No. One if we go that way then every military article may as well have a moral and legal section.
Isn't war horrible? Yes it is but sometimes there is no other option and war is legal. Well only some actions are, what about Drogheda? Drogheda was carried out under the laws of war as they were at that time. Perhaps but x says it was a war crime and y says it was a moral crime and what about Fallujah? ... .
I personally am for deleting from this article the section "Legal considerations" that you have cut and pasted from the Bombing of Dresden in World War II. -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"Isn't war horrible" That is about the weakest argument against I've seen. How many people coming here have heard about the prohibitions of the Hague Cons & know even less than either of us? Hell, I've been reading in this area for years, & I've never seen a complete text of them. Are we to leave people completely at the mercy of historiographers with axes to grind? Or completely in the dark? Deal with the OT junk as it arises.
Of course, there's always the option of highlighting the OT or conflicting POV, as is being done (it seems) here, when an attempt (mine, note) to achieve a less-legalistic approach failed... I have small hope of prevailing in this effort, either. It will see me go 3:3, I suspect. However...
Oh, BTW, I've seen the Hague Con arguments for "defended/undefended" before. The link doesn't answer what "legitimate military target" is, which is what I have never seen (& wondered if it was in parts unreproduced in sources I've read), but it does support my view no city in Occupied Europe was "undefended". TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:10 & 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems is that the draft treaties interbelica defined defence with no mention of radar and the integrated national defences such as the Kammhuber Line line which meant that all of Germany was defended, but not in the ways envisaged in Art 2. of the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938.[8]. Also as all the major powers bombed civilian targets, there is the argument that common practise among states (as happened in World War I with gas) nullifies previous treaty obligations.(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) Without positive international law, such speculation is just that and apart from construction a list of POVs I do not see how such a section can be constructed. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
PBS, I continue to think addressing it beats ignoring it, even if it is only in passing as "a list of POVs". To begin with, this is the first clear statement of what was a legitimate target I've seen, & the BC statements of "targeting factories" make sense in light of Art. 2.b. there; in the same light, that BC crews were lied to is worth mentioning, IMO. The suggestion of war crime & that BC crews were lied to, in light of Art. 4 & Lindemann's "dehousing" memo, is also instructive, IMO. These issues, I suggest, deserve a mention in the debate over bombing, & there are few readers of the page as well informed as either of us (or as almost anybody in the Project). I'm after some kind of look at the ethics of it. And, to be clear, not just the ethics of bombing civilians, but the ethics of expending crews. As noted here, the issue arises & (AFAIK) has never been addressed. IMO, it should be, & can be here, to the widest audience ever, perhaps. Disagree? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Note the word Draft in 1938 Amsterdam Convention, it was never adopted and given that the developments of radar were top secret, that draft treaty was redundant before it was drafted. Also it has no concept of defence in depth. a good example of this is the movement of anti-aircraft guns from London to the coast to defeat the V-1s. No one in their right mind would say that because the British moved their AAA guns to the coast London was no longer defended, but if one was to use article 2 of the Draft treaty and take it literally one could make a case for saying so. If you are interested in such definitions then you also need to read the legal arguments in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State (1963) which is based on an interpretation of the Hague Convention of 1907 IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 notice they did not use the 1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention, which if they had would have destroyed their argument.
The British ethics of expending crews, for the period 1942/43 was explained by the Singleton Report. As the second front was not opened for another year the same argument can be used for 1944 as well. That the strategic bombing campaign did not succeed in winning the war on its own, does not undermine the reasons why the British government considered the butchers bill worth paying at the onset of the campaign.
I think it is much more encyclopaedic for an section like Aerial area bombardment and international law than to put together a list of opinions. It is to do with WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. As there was no positive international law on this issue, everyone can hold an opinion on it, so if we "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." then we end up with a list of opinions which I think is a not an encyclopaedic article.
Perhaps you are not aware of the significance of the Rotterdam Blitz and the change of British policy that followed it (See Rotterdam Blitz#Aftermath), but I do not understand your comment "in the same light, that BC crews were lied to is worth mentioning, IMO" Who lied to them (Bomber Crews?) about what? --PBS (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not. The crews were told they were targeting factories, which was demonstrably false, given the policy of "dehousing" & the express objective of breaking German morale. That there even was a change bears mentioning somewhere, & the reasons for it. So does the evolution of strategic bombing, IMO, from the refusal to allow bombing of German forests ("Are you aware it's private property? You'll be asking me to bomb Essen, next.") to expressly targeting factories (& finding it impossible, per Butt) to "dehousing", plus the claims of "pickle barrel" accuracy proving less so with cloud & AA, plus the persistent fantasies B-17s could sink ships at sea (despite repeated evidence to the contrary).
  • I'm not going to debate formatting, 'cause I really don't care exactly how it's presented, only that it should be. Reference to things like, for instance, the Singleton Report, bear inclusion. So, too, IMO, do the options available, posited in Terraine (The Right of the Line) &, less directly, in re ASW.
  • I confess I don't see your point over the "draft" nature of the doc, the secrecy of radar, or moving AA. I make no suggestion (nor did I, AFAICT) German cities were ever undefended; I would argue, depending on your definition of "defended", even blackout could count as a defensive measure, & were I defending BC crews, I'd argue it.
  • In looking at this, I see nothing addressing my point, namely why something like 1 million Allied (US/UK/Commonwealth) airmen lost their lives in apparently fruitless attacks. (See my remarks here & cf Terraine.) It seems the arguments haven't advanced past Harris' "it's never been tried" or the usual nonsense of "bombing or nothing". I continue to think expending crews (as explained elsewhere), when there were other options, was unethical, as noted in Garrett's Ethics & Airpower in World War II. I also consider the strategic choice of using VLR aircraft for bombing rather than ASW patrol was stupid. Do you disagree these matters, & the evolution of policy, bear discussion somewhere in re strategic bombing? Or perhaps strategy more broadly? A "strategic choices" section, say? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"something like 1 million Allied (US/UK/Commonwealth) airmen lost their lives" Or not.... Serves me right relying on memory: around 50K each, not 500K. Oops... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The British response

I've removed the misquote from JM Spaight. The actual quote is:

"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

The full Spaight quote is far too long for the article, and the snippet that had been "quoted" gave a false impression of Spaight's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymestl (talk • contribs) 09:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

B-17 photo

Appears to be copyrighted by Life Magazine.., not the property of 'a soldier' as stated in this article. http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=e78ea925d4e185a3&q=B-17%20source:life&prev=/images%3Fq%3DB-17%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den —Preceding unsigned comment added by B29bomber (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is owned by either the USAAF or the Army, it was sourced from a DoD site. Koalorka (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Typically, LIFE includes the name of the photographer in their WWII shots. In many cases, the photographer given credit is a member of the Armed Forces, and the snapshot is therefore in the public domain. In this instance, there's no credit given. I find it hard to assume it was taken by a civilian photographer since this shot is clearly over the target. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The shot is beautiful and is one of my favorites.., i have only seen it with the LIFE logo on it though. I am just keeping an eye out for you. Do not want to get the people at LIFE upset for not given them credit for a photo that is copyrighted by them. Cheers, B29bomber (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If LIFE modified the photo in any way, then it is my understanding that it is now copyrighted, even if the image was originally public domain. So, if LIFE stuck their logo on the image, then I think that makes it copyrighted. I checked the link and it appears that the photo was taken from a DoD site, so it's clean. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiroshima

This section is not carefully researched. The area destroyed at Hiroshima - according to the USSBS was 68.5% NOT 90%. The number of cities fire bombed with conventional weapons was 66 NOT 67. I don't have time to correct this now but I will try to come back and go over this more slowly. WardHayesWilson (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the 90% number was buildings damaged or destroyed, not simply destroyed as it says in the table. Good catch! The percentage destroyed was not published in the bombing survey; described there are radii of destruction for concrete and brick buildings, wooden buildings and lesser damage such as broken windows. I didn't find any support for your number of 68.5%. I saw that four square miles or 15.3% of Hiroshima was "flattened to the ground except for 50 concrete buildings".
Good luck with that 66 vs 67 comment. I have seen 67 cities mentioned in every source. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Further investigation shows that various sources say different things. The most solid published source for 68.5% that I found was page 59 of the book Rain of Ruin by Goldstein, Dillon & Wenger where it says that Hiroshima, as observed from the air on August 11, 1945, appeared [to investigators studying photographs] to have about 4.7 square miles destroyed and damaged, an area equaling 68.5% of the city. This comparison chart of the USSBS also says 4.7 square miles destroyed, but doesn't say 68.5%. That number is dependent on what is considered the extent of Hiroshima's area. This USSBS page says a roughly circular area that was 4.4 square miles in size was "almost completely burned out."
This page of the USSBS says that the city included 26.36 square miles at the time but only 13 were built up. Seven square miles were moderately or densely built up. The four square miles in the heart of the city contained 75% of the population.
This page of the USSBS says "Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire. This reverberates with the 90% figure that I had found published earlier.
This page of the USSBS says that the Japanese counted up the buildings destroyed and arrived at 62,000 out of 90,000, or about 69%. Another 6,000 buildings were severely damaged.
This page describes various damage areas, depending on the building construction:
  • 0.05 square miles - Earthquake-resistant concrete buildings destroyed
  • 3.4 square miles - One-story light steel frame buildings severely damaged
  • 3.6 square miles - Multi-story brick buildings severely damaged
  • 6.0 square miles - One-story brick buildings severely damaged
  • 6.0 square miles - Wooden residential buildings severely damaged
  • 8.5 square miles - Wood-frame industrial buildings severely damaged
So, if we take the 4.4 sq mile figure and divide it by 26.36, we get 16.7% of the city "almost completely burned out." If we take the 4.7 sq mile "destroyed" figure into 26.36, we get 17.8%. Only if we start ignoring the outlying areas of the city do we get up into much higher percentages. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Targeting London

Didn't targeting london take pressure off the fighter bases, and essentially save the RAF from early destruction? Bachcell (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It did. And apparently, Peirse & Winston hoped to provoke just such a reaction to help take the pressure off. BC was more important to the BoB than most people realize. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent major edit

I've removed a couple of sentences following the recent major edit. Firstly "Shortly after Germany invaded Poland and bombed the town of Wieluń, the British bombed Wilhelmshaven, Cuxhaven and Heligoland in Germany, the first bombings to take place, in a strategic sense, outside of a theatre of combat. " In the days and weeks following the outbreak of the war Britain only bombed German warships. By giving the names of the ports it gives a false impression of attacks on land targets. Secondly, the Germans carried out strategic attacks in Poland on 1st September, for example the raid on the airfield at Brest-Terespol on the Polish/Soviet border.

"Nevertheless, after the UK bombed Berlin for the first time, a bombing which "focused on morale", Hitler initiated the Battle of Britain. Germany targetted military and industrial sites in the UK, but the panic caused after an accidental civilian-area bombing led to a change of tactics."

The Battle of Britain began in early July or early August, depending on whether you go by British or German dates, but certainly before the first bombing of Berlin by the RAF. Secondly, the bombing of Berlin focused on several military and industrial targets, not morale, and the link to the later area bombing directive implies this was an area attack, which it wasn't. Thirdly, Germany changed tactics to bombing British cities gradually, due both to the failure to gain air superiority and the inaccuracy of night bombing, but certainly not because of any panic following an accidental bombing of a civilian target.

To me the whole article now seems disjointed and would be better reverted to its 9 April condition.Tymestl (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted to the last version on 9 April, however I think that user:Npovshark has highlighted some problems with the article that need addressing. Information that exists only in the lead should be moved into the appropriate sections and the lead should be re-written as a summary of the main body of the article. --PBS (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this article is long-winded and off-topic and you've disgarded all my efforts to fix it.
No, the allies did not bomb ships, Tymestl, they bombed the port cities. Also, Berlin was bombed after Sylt was bombed in retalliation for the Scapa Flow incident. 11 people were killed. The battle of britain began when the Germans sent planes to britain. Berlin was bombed, and hitler responded to that. This is a well-established fact. [9] I don't know where you are getting your facts from. Then, Secondly, the Germans carried out strategic attacks in Poland on 1st September, for example the raid on the airfield at Brest-Terespol on the Polish/Soviet border. This is not outside a theatre of combat, Germany was invading Poland...that is a scene of combat. In any case, I have changed the wording so anyone who is not clear on where the combat - the only combat in all of europe - was will know.
Also, your next complaint:Germany changed tactics to bombing British cities gradually, due both to the failure to gain air superiority and the inaccuracy of night bombing, but certainly not because of any panic following an accidental bombing of a civilian target. No, that is not true. The opposite is a well known fact, I learned it when I was in 4th grade when I read it in a huge Time-Life book -12 volumes :) - I bought about the war...I remember this bc I got it really cheap, as (and I learned this only later) it had the old myths about lampshades etc. from the Holocaust as facts and the old figures for Auschwitz. Seems they wanted it out of circulation ASAP. But moving on anyway...[10]. It is all right there.
The Holland blitz section and Poland sections were completely ridiculous; the intro was tedious, off-topic and spent far too much time blabbing about the raf and its "policies" (why does the article not mention Gemrany's policies...which it actually followed by not bombing any britain)rather than focusing on the air war.
I fail to see how the article is now "disjointed" instead of rescued of its disjointed-ness, which is what I was pretty sure I did.
For these reasons, I am re-reverting.--Npovshark (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

first bombing of Germany - Ohlau by Poland

Can anybody find a ref for "the first bombs dropped on Germany during World War II were dropped by a single Polish PZL.23 Karaś of the 21st squadron on a factory in the Silesian town of Ohlau, today Oława"? I've tried, but failed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The same is said in the PZL.23 Karaś article. There is no inline citation, but there are a bunch of Polish sources at the end of the article - if anyone has access to those they may be able to help out. Hohum (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It is repeated in Polish wiki, and is some online foras, but I cannot find any refs. I tried looking on Google Print for Polish sources and I couldn't find anything - which is rather surprising, usually there would be at least something (even in snippet hits). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda and terror bombing of Poland

Here is a useful ref: [11] that discusses how Nazi propaganda produced claims of (fake) Polish atrocities to justify the (real) German atrocities, particularly in the context of bombing Warsaw. Further, I'd like to ask Kurfürst to stop cherry-picking out-of-context parts of sentences to cite. The French attache message was cited, even through it is debunked in the next sentence: [12]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the link, as it stands it the OKW believed that on 8 September the Polish units used poison gas; it would seem, the 'unspecified' attrocities were not unspecified at all.
Regarding your concerns that the French attachés quote was 'cherry-picked', I can assure you it was not. In the meantime, however, I was able to find a fuller quote and the name of the gentlemen. To satisfy your request and ease your doubts, I will include it in full into the article. Kurfürst (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So now the Poles used poison gas against the Germans .... perhaps they also gassed themselves in Auschwitz?Oh, "sorry"... I forgot that according to the latest trends all Europeans are now responsible for that....--Jacurek (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Also added the standing orders for the Luftwaffe for the role it should fullfill in the campaign:

Directives for the attack forces to execute the plans invasion of Poland, codenamed Fall Weiss, summarized the role of the Luftwaffe in the upcoming campaign as follows:


Historical revisionism

This Historical revisionism on this page has to stop.--Jacurek (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And it will. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what???

Kurfurst, you added the sentence (among much other text) "to launch a retaliatory attack on the Warsaw Ghetto for unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers" and cited it to Hutton. In Sept 1939. When the Warsaw Ghetto did not yet exist. Can you provide the full quote from Hooton?radek (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly: 'Early on 13 September telephoned Löhr with orders for an incendinary attack upon northern Warsaw, the Ghetto (due North of the Danzig Railway Station) possibly being included in the target folder.' Kurfürst (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Warsaw Ghetto--Jacurek (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

..also Kurfurst, why are you to decide how many pictures is too many ? Discuss first please.--Jacurek (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, why are you removing properly cited information en masse cited from reliable secondary sources? Kurfürst (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, but the current sentence says "On the 13 of September, following orders of the ObdL to launch a retaliatory attack on the Warsaw Ghetto for unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers[dubious – discuss]: 183 bomber sorties were flown with 50:50 load of high explosives and incendiaries, setting the Ghetto ablaze.".

So even if Hutton means the location of the future Ghetto (since the Ghetto didn't exist) or "Jewish Quarter" (which partly but not completely overlapped with the future Ghetto) I still don't see anything about it being a reprisal action or anything about unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers. In view of that I would just stick to the bare facts - an incendiary attack upon northern Warsaw which set it ablaze.radek (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He may well be using Ghetto for Jewish Quarter. OED Ghetto n.
1. The quarter in a city, chiefly in Italy, to which the Jews were restricted.
2. transf. and fig. A quarter in a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited by a minority group or groups, usu. as a result of economic or social pressures; an area, etc., occupied by an isolated group; an isolated or segregated group, community, or area.
but I would agree that "Jewish Quarter" might be a better choice of words given the historic connotations that "The Warsaw Ghetto" has. --PBS (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but since it's not clear, it may be best to just use compass directions - "Northern Warsaw" - rather then either Warsaw Ghetto or Jewish Quarter. Either way, I don't see back up for the other stuff in the sentence (i.e. that it was a "retaliation", etc.).radek (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats my understanding as well, it seemed rather natural since Ghetto is a fairly widespread term to describe the Jewish Quarters in many languages, dating from Medieval Italy. Probably the Jewish Quarter suggested by PBS would be the best solution, as the Warsaw Ghetto has developed a different meaning since than, and can be misinterpreted.
As for the 'retaliatory attack' part, doubts are nice but this nature of the attack stated by two reliable secondary sources it would require a evidence of at least similar weight. The same question arises about claims of targeting (as opposed to hitting as a result of collateral damage) hospitals etc.; while it is sufficiently proven that this kind of objects were hit, no evidence is offered for that the results were intentional; in fact, one source given states a police station was being targeted, but missed. A more neutral description is required, until there is evidence for the German intent.
Since in this question, as in some others the question is the German intentions with the attack, it should be proven preferably by archival material of German operational orders highlighting targets given out for aircrews for the attack. I am sure, if such tracable evidence exist, Polish historians were all over it and qouting it for decades. Otherwise, I believe the NPOV is already maintained by noticing that the reason given by Obdl was 'unspecified crimes' - every reader can decide for himself, whether he or she accepts this reasoning or considers it a mere pretext; I also have some (say 25%) doubts wheter the stated reason was true or not, but there were a plenty of atrocities committed by the Polish side in this conflict as well, so its not unlikely to me that these attacks for indeed retorsions. Kurfürst (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What atrocities? Nazi propaganda like Bloody Sunday? Or even better, Gleiwitz incident? The fact that the Germans claimed that the war was started by Poles doesn't mean we have to repeat it in every article, and certainly, it doesn't mean we should ever frame Nazi propaganda as anything resembling facts. Such claims require reliable sources, and so far, I see none. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the article stating anywhere the war was started by Poles. As for the nature of the 13 September, it is stated by two reliable secondary sources: retaliation attack for unspecified Polish attrocities during the Polish campaign. If you are on the opinion that no such atrocities ever happened, that is fine, but I find it somewhat surreal. In any case, it is not subject of the article, so no problem should arise from either Nazi or Polish propaganda. Kurfürst (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
We should note that legal point of view in German state during World War 2 was that Poles, Jews, Roma weren't human beings, and thus they didn't deserve any protection(hence such things as gas chambers, lamplights out of skin)-leveling of undefended cities of Frampol or Wieluń was probably not seen as anything extraordinary. Those actually two exposed examples, but they were over 150 towns and cities destroyed that way. Remember that much of Poland was to be depopulated for German settlers in rural communities so Germany didn't need cities.--Molobo (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand, Wielun was mistakenly bombed by a mere 30 Stukas, which were ordered to attack a Polish cavarly coloumn identified in the area. Kurfürst (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes... the Luftwaffe pilots thought that city building are cavalry columns and "mistakenly" bombed all Polish towns to "kill the horses".--Jacurek (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed this is how the Polish site quotes the memories of a LW Stuka pilot who were performing a bombing run - he appears to be convinced having bombed a Polish cavarly brigade. I recall seeing the actual LW orders for the attack, stating the same. From the Polish site:
Warto przytoczyć tutaj opis ataku widziany oczami pilota Luftwaffe, który owego wrześniowego poranka siedział za sterami bombowca: „Przede mną na ukos grupa domów, jakieś zabudowanie dworskie albo mała wieś. Dym unosi się stamtąd i powleka ciemną smugą żółte pola i połyskującą rzekę. Wieluń – nasz cel! W mieście kilka domów stoi w wielkim ogniu. Jednak wysoko ponad tym ciemne punkty na tle niebieskiego nieba z błyskawiczną szybkością tu i ówdzie śmigające jak ważki nad lustrzaną taflą wody: to nie­mieckie myśliwce, które oczekują i mają ochraniać nasz atak… Mój pierwszy atak na żywy cel! Przez ułamek sekundy błysk świadomości: tam w dole jest żywe miasto, miasto pełne ludzi… Wprawdzie są to żołnierze, a ja atakuję tylko żołnierzy… Ulice w dole wyglądają jak obrazek z pocztówki, a ciemne punkty, które się na nich poruszają są celem. Niczym tylko celem. Na wysokości 2500 metrów życie na ziemi traci swoją wagę… Wysokość – 1200 me­trów… pierwsza bomba spada!... A teraz spojrzenie w dół. Bomba upadła dobrze, wprost na ulicę. Wybucha dym, a czarna masa, która sunęła wzdłuż ulicy, zatrzymuje się. Na miejscu, w które trafiłem, powstało ciemne kłębowisko. I w to kłębowisko padają serie bomb z innych samolotów. Słaby ogień przeciwlotniczy z lasku od strony północnej. Zdaje mi się, że wzięto na cel Perkuna. Wokół jego maszyny błyskają strzały. Lecz my kierujemy lot zgodnie z roz­kazem ku północnemu wylotowi miasta. Znowu bomby! Tuż za miastem jakaś zagroda za­pchana wojskiem i zaprzęgami. Jesteśmy na wysokości zaledwie 1200 metrów, opadamy na 800. Bomby spadają, a zagroda tam w dole znika w ogniu i dymie razem ze wszystkim, co się w niej znajduje. Odwrót! Ostatni ładunek, ten najcięższy spada na rynek. Fontanna płomieni, dymu i odłamków wyższa niż wieża małego kościoła… ostatnie spojrzenie: z polskiej brygady kawalerii nie pozostało nic…” Kurfürst (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You forgot the following statement: "Podkreślić tutaj należy raz jeszcze, że w Wieluniu nie było żadnych polskich jednostek woj­skowych ani obrony przeciwlotniczej.". Thanks for finding this page; it will be an excellent resource for expanding bombing of Wieluń. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Using statements by soldiers fighting a genocidal war against several wars as source for objective information, isn't productive. I can provided several such quotes describing for example murdered pregnant women, children, concentration camps members as bandits that Germans are fighting against.--Molobo (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Contestable claims - deliberate targeting

The following claim was put forward, then when asked, was 'supported' by false cites by Radek: From the beginning of the war the German Luftwaffe engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities[25], bombing civilian infrastructures[26], targeting hospitals[11] as well as civilian population[27] and refugees[25][28][29].

However, cross-checking the sources claimed to support the claims, none of the sources showed that there were deliberate targeting. Then I attempted to give it NPOV, with the following wording,

Targets in most Polish cities were subjected to massive air attacks [11], with bombs hitting civilian infrastructures[12], hospitals[13] causing casulties amongst the civilian population[14] and refugees[11][15][16].

since none of the sources supported deliberate targeting; in fact, one of the sources referenced gave speculations from the eyewitnesses that the nearby police station was targeted, but missed, ie. much of this was collateral damage of the bombing of legit targets; this was ignored by those who put forward the claim. The other source given, a website (unreliable source) even quoted a LW Stuka pilot noting that he though he was bombing an enemy cavarly unit. This was ignored, too.

It was requested many times to support these claims with cites, and none were provided. Since the burden of evidence is upon Radek and Jacurek (see: 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.), and they have not provided the evidence, I will simply follow the guideline set by Jimmy Wales:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales [17]

and remove the whole claim, aggressively, until direct quotes will be provided for the following:

  • Luftwaffe was targeting cities themselves and not the legit targets in them
  • Luftwaffe was targeting hospitals
  • Luftwaffe was targeting civilian population
  • Luftwaffe was targeting refugees

Kurfürst (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see that it says "targeting". It says "engaged in". Which they did. And for which online sources are provided.radek (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Radeksz. The text you deleted here was neutral and well sourced:
From the beginning of the war the German Luftwaffe engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities, bombing civilian infrastructures, targeting hospitals as well as civilian population and refugees.
I don't see why the word "targeting" would have to be sourced, given that it's not in the paragraph. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because if someone wants to claim that ' targeting hospitals as well as civilian population and refugees ' occured, he needs to provide evidence for it. No evidence, no inclusion, but it can be stated that hospitals etc. were hit, since that is what the sources say - but there is not a single word about these being the targets (ie. intentional bombing of such targets). Similiarly, 'engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities, bombing civilian infrastructures' suggest that the bombing target the cities themselves, rather than targets within cities. Again, no evidence, no inclusion. Kurfürst (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, hospitals. It still had a source, and it only said that hospitals were targeted. And 'engaged in massive air raids against most Polish cities, bombing civilian infrastructures' doesn't "suggest" anything, it says what it says, and it was sourced. Your Wales quote doesn't apply to sourced statements, and you clearly don't have consensus for your edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm speechless when I read Kurfürst comments. I can’t believe it ... Hey Kurfürst, does Kill without pity or mercy.. ring the bell ?...--Jacurek (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
'It still had a source, and it only said that hospitals were targeted.' - it is easy to veryfy this - with a direct quote. From what I understand it comes from a website (an unreliable source, in Polish so in other words most readers can't even check it), and that website is even self-contradictory: the author claims a hospital was hit - but then quotes the Stuka pilot doing the bombing who says he was dropping bombs of a Polish cavarly column (or at least what he believed to be a cavarly coloumn). It seems to be a case when the sources cited simply do not support the claims made. Kurfürst (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I already gave you the direct quote and translation. The website is reliable as it is an academic website of the Institute of History at the University of Lodz. The fact that is in Polish does not make it unreliable, despite your false claim above. How is the source contradictory? You've just made that up. Yes, it quotes a pilot who believed he was attacking soldiers (who weren't there) but so what? How does that change anything? And how can a hospital clearly marked with a Red Cross be completely destroyed (see photo in source) but not "targeted"?radek (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I already gave you the direct quote and translation. - not true. You have been asked to provide direct quotes, you repeatedly refuse to do. Again, burden of evidence
  • 'The website is reliable' - apparently you don't understand what constitutes a Wikipedia:Reliable sources Websites generally don't, self-contradictory websites certainly don't.
  • 'Yes, it quotes a pilot who believed he was attacking soldiers (who weren't there) but so what?' - its shows the the soldiers were the target of the attack, not the civillians, or the city itself. But you are POV pushing for an edit that says the city was the targrt.
  • 'And how can a hospital clearly marked with a Red Cross be completely destroyed (see photo in source) but not "targeted"?' - by mistake. It happened fairly often in the war. Early in the war the LW managed to bomb German cities due to mis-navigation, and managed to sank a German destroyer (and lead another to a minefield) due to mis-identification; it managed to hit its own troops more than one occasion in Poland.

Also, please refrain from removing masses of well sourced cites from the artice, for the single reason it does not fit into your POV. You have removed recently more almost 3000 characters of text - its simple vandalism. I agree the article needs to be trimmed down a lot, but it should be discussed first, and agreed upon. Kurfürst (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? I gave you a direct quote from the source and a translation. What are you asking for? Hitler's specific order for the Luftwaffe to bomb the hospital in Wielun??? Unreasonable requests are disruptive.
  • Yes I know very well what constitutes a reliable source, and academia-associated websites are reliable. And it takes a really bad faith reading of the text to consider the website as "self-contradictory"
  • The soldiers could not have been targets since they weren't there.
  • You're trying to obfuscate the issue here. The Hospital was clearly marked with a Red Cross. Check. It was bombed. Check. To the point of being completely destroyed. Check. If you have compelling evidence that this was a "mistake" or an "accident" then please provide it. If not, we're going with what the sources say.
  • I've removed a long, undue quote which belongs in Wikiquote rather here, and which is presented as containing honest truth without context or without mentioning the fact that things which are said on paper are not necessarily the same things which are done in practice.radek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1, Again, provide direct quotes for the following:

  • Luftwaffe was targeting cities themselves and not the legit targets in them
  • Luftwaffe was targeting hospitals
  • Luftwaffe was targeting civilian population
  • Luftwaffe was targeting refugees

The matter here is the deliberate, or accidental/collateral nature of these damages. Basically you admit now that although you have no evidence at all saying that the LW ordered the attack of Hospitals etc. in Wielun, you continue to state so, while refusing to provide direct quotes for it. There is hardly anything disruptive in asking for evidence, when the burden of proof is upon you. I have even let this stuff remain in the article, noting each and every building that was hit, only removed that these were deliberately targeted - a notion for which you refuse to provide evidence, but nonetheless wish to include in the article. I think you have been offered a very viable, NPOV compromise. 2, This 'academia-associated website' in its langauge is presentation is hardly more than a nationalist website, that has its own aganda which it wishes to press on, ignoring evidence to the contrary of its notion, and in the process it becomes self-contradictory while *claiming*, without any evidence, reference or source, that hospitals were targeted, then quoting the pilots saying they were targeting the Cavarly, which then the 'academic website' completely ignores; its in a foreign language on English wikipedia most people cannot even check. ts a very epitomy of what consitutues an unreliable source. 3 , Yes they weren't there in the city, but nearby, the LW recon, based on which the Stuka dive bombers were sent on a mission, was faulty. Its a mistake, but then you try to present it as a wanton attack on civillians. 4, You are making the claim that the hospital was targeted, the burden of proof is on you, but since no source states this, you start arguing unless the charged proves his innocence, he is considered guilty. That was as acceptable method before around the 1200s... And YES, we are going with what the sources say - sources you keep deleting for some reason (see 5) 5, You have removed two referenced quotes on the subject, without discussing it or even attempting to discuss it. One was quoting the Luftwaffe's operational orders, and it stated that direct and indirect attacks on Polish mobilisation, plus MILITARY targets and ARMAMENT factories are to be bombed in Warsaw. The second - sourced -quote was from a neutral observer of the events, the French attace, who said only military targets were attacked. Both sources clearly contradict the POV you are pushing in the edits, so I am very unconvinced by your reasoning of why you need to remove these. Kurfürst (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding (Kurfürst):"From what I understand it comes from a website (an unreliable source, in Polish so in other words most readers can't even check it)".
Websites aren't automatically unreliable because they are websites. Polish, or any other language is acceptable for sources, but English is preferred, see WP:NONENG.
In addition, primary sources like OKW orders are only supposed to be used within very strict circumstances, and are usually best avoided because interpreting them (i.e. propaganda, incorrect, intentionally obfuscatory / untruthful) is better left to recognised secondary sources. Because of the current argument over interpretation, I think that the ones being used in this article should be removed entirely, and secondary sources used, if available. See WP:PRIMARY Hohum (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Kurfürst have you ever seen a serious encyclopedia like for example Encyclopaedia Britannica publish Luftwaffe's orders? What are those orders to demonstrate anyway? The end result of Nazi Luftwaffe's incivilised bombing of Polish cities were countless innocent civilians barbarically killed. That's what we should concentrate on. Loosmark (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC). Loosmark (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

culmination.

"culminating in the controversial firebombings of Chongqing in China, Hamburg (1943), Dresden (1945)" those bombings were not the culmination, there were other heavier bombings after those dates. --PBS (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence reads: "and other German cities in Europe, the bombing of Tokyo and the controversial atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
There were heavier bombings than these in the context of WWII? Hohum (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Hamburg was early in the war there were lots of raids with larger tonnages after that date. And although Dresden was near the end of the war there were other raids after it which were larger for example Essen and Dortmund, by that time the RAF no longer bothered to use incendiaries on Essen as all they were doing was making the rubble bounce. "11 March 1945: 1,079 aircraft - 750 Lancasters, 293 Halifaxes, 36 Mosquitos - of all bomber groups attacked Essen. This was the largest number of aircraft sent to a target so far in the war. 3 Lancasters lost. 4,661 tons of bombs were dropped on Oboe-directed skymarkers through complete cloud cover. ..." "12 March 1945 1,108 aircraft - 748 Lancasters, 292 Halifaxes, 68 Mosquitos attacked Dortmund. This was another new record to a single target, a record which would stand to the end of the war. 2 Lancasters lost. Another record tonnage of bombs - 4,851 - was dropped through cloud on to this unfortunate city. The only details available from Dortmund state that the attack fell mainly in the centre and south of the city. A British team which investigated the effects of bombing in Dortmund after the war says that, 'The final raid … stopped production so effectively that it would have been many months before any substantial recovery could have occurred'."[13] --PBS (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Which are covered, although not by name, with the phrase I already pointed out: "and other German cities in Europe". (Also, I think Duisberg was hit more heavily with two ~1,000 bomber raids on the same day during Operation Hurricane (1944) totalling about 7,500 tons. Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45, p 343.)
However, it could be phrased better. Although it shouldn't go into too much detail since the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Simply add Dortmund and Duisberg by name? Hohum (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to list any towns other than to say that the raids became steadily larger as the war went on (This is shown in the article by the inclusion of "Allied bombing statistics 1939–45"). The sentence can simply read "The technological sophistication, tactical innovations, and the increased size of Allied aerial bombardment of the Axis home lands, culminated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." --PBS (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Detente?

Is there a way that the edit warring can stop? Can we maybe go through everyone's sources one by one, maybe do a request for comment to get some outside eyes on the page? I hope we can all agree that reverting each other's edits all day in not productive. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

On my part I am willing to refrain from editing the Poland section, despite the last edits by Radek which IMHO is simple vandalism of referenced sources, with nearly 3000 characters removed, accident all that contested his own theory. Can you please request for comment - I am not very familiar with the process, but I am sure a neutral editor is needed here. Kurfürst (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Then please do, o.k. ?--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism aren't helpful Kurfürst, please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Further, quickly jumping to an RFC shows little attempt at forming consensus. Hohum (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I can see little other way to sort out the situation in a normal manner than 'quickly jumping' to an RFC, as the behaviour of the recent influx of Polish editors shows no kind of attempt at forming a consensus.
Unless, you consider gross uncivility, and using terms like 'holocaust denier', 'historical revisionism', 'Nazi propaganda', 'disgusting views' etc. etc. a telltale sign of willingness to consensus.
Regrattably, as removal of referenced cites from the article continued by this well definable circle of editors with no appearant reason given apart from 'it did not happen' and 'it is false' and 'Hitler said', which is, to me, a profund refusal of forming consensus, I had to restore some of the statements removed. I think the edit I made recently is already a viable compromise to both parties, but if even after that there will be still no sign of compromise and consensus seeking, I fear the only reason to solve this is a request for comment, and if neccessary, a request for arbitration. Kurfürst (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of cited references by Radek, Jacurek. The record

Since these editors constantly remove sourced material from the article, last time as much as 3000 characters in one 'cut', I will keep record which ones they have removed, for any inpartial editor to see, and discuss.

  • Removal of the sourced German operational orders of the Luftwaffe for the Polish Campaign, stating:


  • Removal of the sourced Polish bombings of German territory:

Berlin was bombed on first day of the war by the Polish Air Force,[19] and a single Polish PZL.23 Karaś of the 21st squadron bombed a factory in the Silesian town of Ohlau (today: Olawa) on the second day. Shortly after, in a period of a few days, Luftwaffe numerical and technological superiority took its toll on the Polish Air Force and such operations were impossible.

  • Manipulation of the sourced cite from Hooton, stating the Sept 13 attack was a repraisal for Polish attrocities, removal of the sourced fact that some German Commanders sabotaged to retalitory bombing and choose to bomb pure military targets instead:

On the 13 of September, following orders of the ObdL to launch a retaliatory attack on the Warsaw`s Jewish Quarters for unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers.[20] With 50:50 load of high explosives and incendiaries, two Staffeln from KG 4 reported to have set the Jewish Quarter ablaze.[21] They were followed by 183 bomber sorties towards the evening[22], but during the meeting with Göring, 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[23]; Seywald was relieved shortly thereafter.[24]

  • Removal of the sourced cite from neutral eyewitness, Géneral Armengaud, French Air Attaché in Warsaw, reporting on German air attacks on 14 September:


Berlin was never bombed by the Polish Air Force in September, 1939. The book being cited to support this assertion is simply mistaken in that regard. It is not uncommon for very general histories of World War II to contain errors and this is clearly one of them. Any one could look up histories of aerial warfare during World War II to verify that Berlin was never bombed by the Allies until the second half of 1940. As was pointed out, our Bombing of Berlin in World War II says nothing about air attacks on that city in 1939. Quite simply, these never happened. 70.48.219.38 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The first quote seems fine. The second needed to be corrected (as discussed, Warsaw Ghetto did not exist in September '39!). I've addressed the misinterpretation of the French attache quote above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It will take a bit more than to someone state that 'it just never happened', or 'I did not find it in other books'. For example, Goebbel's personal diary notes several air raids on Berlin in September 1939. That's two sources supporting the event. I can say the same for the allaged, 14 September bombing of the Ghetto, which I am pretty sure is simply mistaken with the events of the previous day, as no other publication seems to mention any bombing on that day. Kurfürst (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Goebbel's personal diary is a primary source, and not helpful in this instance, as are the operational orders. Hohum (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Goebbel's personal diary is not a primary source, it has been published in a book form, with comments, in many languages. The operational orders were also published in many secondary sources. Are you insisting to completely ignore all German sources of the events? Kurfürst (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
are we talking here about Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister for propaganda? Loosmark (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
His diary is absolutely a primary source. His diary with comments by a recognised historian with good credentials is a primary source with comments. A good secondary source is peer reviewed synthesis, conclusions etc, by a recognised historian, with excerpts. Furthermore, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources" per WP:Sources. I haven't, at any point suggested ignoring all German sources, so I'll ask you not to put words in my mouth by creating straw men. Find better sources, or don't make questionable additions. Hohum (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We have a H.P. Willmott, a lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, author of the highly regarded 'Great Crusade', stating that Berlin was bombed by the Polish Air Force on the first day of the war. This was also referenced in the text. Against that, we Piotrus, who awarded himself with the title of 'Prokonsul', an editor with no expertise in the field, claiming that it simply did not happen.... Its not even a question wheter to include that information or not. Kurfürst (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What was the extent of the Polish bombing of Berlin according to Willmott? Hohum (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Willmott notes the occuring of the event, but does not details the extent of the damage done by the bombers in the city. Kurfürst (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Willmott wrote a general history of the whole war and the supposed bombing of Berlin takes up one sentence (not backed up by any sources in his book, I may add). If this event really occured and was significant, it should be possible to find dozens of books discussing it in more detail. After all this would have been the first bombing of the German capital during the war. So, how many Polish planes participated, what targets were hit, how many casualties did they cause, what were their losses? All this information should be easily available. But search all you want and you will not find it, because the attack never happened. Willmott may be an acclaimed historian, but here we have a minor error in his book. Event eminent historians are only human and they sometimes err in small details.
This is not a matter of the article being pro-Polish, pro-German, or whatever. It is a simple error of fact. Wikipedia should not be propagating errors found in books. It should instead be correcting them.70.48.219.18 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Wieluń, only mentioned in the lead.

Why is the the bombing of Wieluń only mentioned in the lead, and not in the body of the article? It is the first "strategic" bombing attack of of the war, and seems to swiftly debunk German pre war policies about not attacking civilians. Surely it merits a few passages? Hohum (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Because some editors repeatedly insisted that it would inserted in the lead section, instead of its proper place in the Poland section, to create a non-NPOV atmosphere in the beginning of the article. It is objectionable, as it is clearly a controversial event - and not even the first bombing BTW - the first bombing occured with Stukas attacking demolition buildings near a bridge some 20 minutes before the war 'officially' started, in order to prevent the bridge from being blown up.
As for 'swiftly debunk', I don't think so, there are dozens of sources stating clearly that the German's bombing's target was a Polish cavarly brigade that was located in the vicinity and that Wielun was bombed in error by Stuka close support bombers, in faith that the cavarly unit was passing through the city. It should be noted in the article that the bombing was controversial, with more details of the event, stating the Polish version (indiscriminate bombing) and the German version (bombing in error), the latter which is BTW shared by the majority of Western historians, can be read in the main article of Wielun. The only source stating it as a terror bombing seems to be a Polish webpage, appearantly written by a journalist, and even it is self contradictory: mentioning that this and that building was hit, then quoting one of Stuka pilots who was clearly in the faith of bombing Polish cavarly. Kurfürst (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
dozen of sources? you mean sources like the Goebbels diary? Loosmark (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Cite the sources. Also, first strategic bombing. Stukas attacking a bridge to prevent its demolition sounds like ground support to me. However, I'm not going to argue semantics about a side issue. Almost entirely flattening a town because a cavalry unit was "in the vicinity" / "in error" is going to need excellent sources. Again, I didn't call it a terror bombing - enough with the straw men. Cite the sources. Hohum (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite your sources before asking them - claims like 'entirely flattening a town' (fact: the town centre was damaged, as pictures and sources clearly show, with a number of houses demolished in the centre), or how some 30 Stukas can kill 1200 people are going to need excellent, reliable, and verifiable sources as well, for it is highly unlikely, and dubious. What is the 1200 killed claimed is sourced upon? Is there an official listing of the dead on that day? Or it was just blown all out proportion by propaganda, as with most of the so-called 'terror bombings' (see Guernica 300 made into 5000 dead, Rotterdam's 8-900 into 30 000, the 20-30 000 dead in Dresden into 350 000). The burden of evidence is upon the one making the claim. So far there is none, and it appears that you are claiming that a town was 'flattened' (no source given), and unless it is proven wrong by others by citing 'excellent' sources, it is a fact..? Its akin to Russel's teapot. So far it is only claimed by a website, which cites no references, massively bised in its tone, and is written by a journalist, and the editors using it as a source ignored that the site noted that Stuka pilots were under the impression of bombing their target, a Polish cavarly coloum. You are right, it is enough of presenting mistaken bombings as wanton destruction of civillian property and intentional terror attacks. Moreover, Poeppel/Preussen/Hase in their book make it clear that it was a mistake, that occurs in war. Direct quote from page 248: 'The papers of Luftflotte 4, 2. Fliegerdivision, I./Stg76 and Stg. and 77. and from Richhofen's war diary , that on the eve of the war, reconnaissance reported a Polish division and next to it, a Polish cavarly brigade, both of which had to be neutralized. Due to the low level fog, however, both attacks in the morning and at noon missed the targets. Thus Wielun was not an intentional terror attack, even if the effects were similiar; such mistaken bombings occured with all airforces during the war. Seminaries of the University of History of Hannover reached the same conclusions.' The authors also cite the references in BA-MA for the war diaries they refer to. The fact that there were nearby Polish military units is admitted even by Polish sources. Thats a massively well referenced, reliable secondary source, contradicting a biased, unreferenced website written by some Journalist. And since you argue that tactical bombings are not part of the article, the article needs to note that it was not a 'strategic bombing', but ground support for the Army, which only Polish sources claim to be a 'terror bombing'. The current version is deeply NPOV. Kurfürst (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Another source. Direct quote from Suka Vol 1 - Luftwaffe Ju 87 Dive bomber units, 1939-1941, page 23, by Peter C Smith: 'Huge concentrations of Polish cavarly were on the move toward Wielun where Hptm Sigel's I/St.G. 76 had earlier pounded the Polish defence works there. By the afternoon the dive bombers were at full cry. At 1300 I/StG 2 led by Major Dinort from Nieder-Ellguth, were directed against this concentration, followed a few hours later, by Schwarzkopff with sixty operational Stukas of I/StG 77. Together the dive bombers, braving the intense anti aircraft fire, decimated the horse soldiers of Poland; an unequal combat maybe, but the advance was turned into a rout by ninety Stukas and Wielun fell to the Germans on day one.'

Moreover Direct quote from Suka Vol 1 - Luftwaffe Ju 87 Dive bomber units, 1939-1941, page 20, by Peter C Smith, supporting that visibility conditions were poor on the first day: "Wheater conditions were unfavourable, with a visibility of only one kilometre and practically closed layer of fog at 50 metres altitude. Much depended on how the wheater would develop at the target within the next 15 minutes." and, same page: "Fog, mist and poor visibility thwarted many of the sorties planned for the morning of the first day of the assault, but a part of I/StG 2 managed to hit its assigned target, the hangars at Krakow airfield." That is now two reliable, published secondary sources stating the same against a website. Kurfürst (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of going on about how unfair the universe is to you, and other irrelevant events, you could have confined yourself to just presenting the sources, as I civilly asked. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" see WP:V.
Poeppel/Preussen/Hase seems fine to me, unless anyone has any reasonable complaints about it. However, even if using Stukas, it's only a ground support mission if you are directly supporting troops - German units were on the fringes of Wielun?
I assume "Suka" is "Stuka"? The author appears to have written several books on Stuka's, which have been republished under various name combinations, which one is this? (I can't track down the particular name you gave) Got an ISBN? Are the quoted parts informed comments by a historian, or less informed comment by an aircraft buff, or simple translations of period documentation? Hohum (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, its 'Stuka' not some other kind of book. :D Details of book.
  • 'However, even if using Stukas, it's only a ground support mission if you are directly supporting troops' - earlier you said that the Stuka attack (first attack in the war) on the Vistula bridges is 'ground support', even there were no German army nearby.
  • The book is concentrating on Stuka operations, not technical detail of the Stuka etc. Peter C Smith appears to be a military historian of naval and air war.
  • There was nothing about the 'standing of the universe', please stop being sarcastic, and untrue in your characterization of other editors. Kurfürst (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You are running into conflicts with everybody here Kurfürst. Perhaps you should rethink your edits which are very controversial to say the least.--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems we are making a progress towards compromise, while your behaviour remained unchanged. Kurfürst (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I presumed that there were German troops near the bridge ready to seize it. Is this incorrect? Were there German units on the periphery of Wielun when it was bombed? What was the scope of the Polish bombing of Berlin? Can you read the ISBN number off the book you are using as a reference? Is this book by a historian with supported analysis, or is he parroting primary sources - or something in between? At least you stopped with the straw men; wait - I've only vaguely characterised one editor. You may eventually claw back some credibility after citing Goebbels. Hohum (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"the German Luftwaffe bombed cities like Warsaw, Wieluń and Frampol." - I restored the sentence, not the the lead, but to the "Poland" section, where such information belongs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are no sources to the contrary at all against the two cited references, and correspondingly, changes should be made stating that Wielun was mistakenly bombed by the LW while it was neutralizing Polish military; and that there was considerable destruction of civillian life and property in the process - unless Hohum, Piotrus etc. starts citing his sources for his statements, of at least similar detail and credibility as the sources cited by me. This would lend some credibility for their arguments: doubts, you see, are like opinions, everyone has them, but to spout out one after the other makes an undoubtedly false impression you are just avoiding to cite reliable sources (perhaps even lacking it) by resorting to aggressive rhetorics. When you will start citing your sources, I will share my doubts with you, and we can then deal with your doubts, too. Besides all your 'doubts' can be answered by ordering the book and reading it for yourself, it is, after all, a verifiable source; you can also contact the author, and ask him, if he is just 'parroting primary sources'. In the meantime, you can read the details of the book (incl. ISBN) on the link already provided for you, can you? And start providing your own cites, of course, instead of lamenting about credibility and various other ad hominem attacks. Kurfürst (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst your constant apologist view on the atrocities committed by the Luftwaffe is starting to be annoying. BTW i don't know German very well so could you please look at the first pic on this website http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pol39/pol39.htm and please translate me what does it say. Does it say "we are only neutralising military units" or maybe something else? Loosmark (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Does a motto on the transport plane about 'kicking the enemy in the rear' by bringing war materiel to front has any relevance to the Wielun bombing, Loosmark? I fail to see how. Explain please. Kurfürst (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Junkers Ju 52 wasn't only a transport plane, it was also used as a bomber for example during the bombing of Warsaw. Anyway the motto doesn't say anything about kicking the enemy in the rear but rather about bringing death. Regarding the Wielun bombing, the explanation that they had to destroy 90% of a city by some mistake because some unit might have been somewhere near is, and i'm generous here, weak. Loosmark (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Ju 52 was a transport plane, not a bomber. Thats what the motto refers to (ie. bringing troops and war supplies for the Army) as well, though this is largely irrelevant. Do you have cite for 90% of a city was destroyed in the air attack? It seems to be much of the town centre was destroyed (though the pictures after the bombing don't show anything like that), not the city and there was some ground fighting in the area too. Kurfürst (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right, it might have been 89% or even only 88% which changes the picture oh so dramatically.. I've to check if Goebbel has an entry about that one in his diary. Loosmark (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it means you have no sources to cite then. I have checked the Polish webpage and found an interesting entry. Since I do not speak Polish, could you translate it to me to English? It seems to be another interesting source of the events. : "Warto przytoczyć tutaj opis ataku widziany oczami pilota Luftwaffe, który owego wrześniowego poranka siedział za sterami bombowca: „Przede mną na ukos grupa domów, jakieś zabudowanie dworskie albo mała wieś. Dym unosi się stamtąd i powleka ciemną smugą żółte pola i połyskującą rzekę. Wieluń – nasz cel! W mieście kilka domów stoi w wielkim ogniu. Jednak wysoko ponad tym ciemne punkty na tle niebieskiego nieba z błyskawiczną szybkością tu i ówdzie śmigające jak ważki nad lustrzaną taflą wody: to nie­mieckie myśliwce, które oczekują i mają ochraniać nasz atak… Mój pierwszy atak na żywy cel! Przez ułamek sekundy błysk świadomości: tam w dole jest żywe miasto, miasto pełne ludzi… Wprawdzie są to żołnierze, a ja atakuję tylko żołnierzy… Ulice w dole wyglądają jak obrazek z pocztówki, a ciemne punkty, które się na nich poruszają są celem. Niczym tylko celem. Na wysokości 2500 metrów życie na ziemi traci swoją wagę… Wysokość – 1200 me­trów… pierwsza bomba spada!... A teraz spojrzenie w dół. Bomba upadła dobrze, wprost na ulicę. Wybucha dym, a czarna masa, która sunęła wzdłuż ulicy, zatrzymuje się. Na miejscu, w które trafiłem, powstało ciemne kłębowisko. I w to kłębowisko padają serie bomb z innych samolotów. Słaby ogień przeciwlotniczy z lasku od strony północnej. Zdaje mi się, że wzięto na cel Perkuna. Wokół jego maszyny błyskają strzały. Lecz my kierujemy lot zgodnie z roz­kazem ku północnemu wylotowi miasta. Znowu bomby! Tuż za miastem jakaś zagroda za­pchana wojskiem i zaprzęgami. Jesteśmy na wysokości zaledwie 1200 metrów, opadamy na 800. Bomby spadają, a zagroda tam w dole znika w ogniu i dymie razem ze wszystkim, co się w niej znajduje. Odwrót! Ostatni ładunek, ten najcięższy spada na rynek. Fontanna płomieni, dymu i odłamków wyższa niż wieża małego kościoła… ostatnie spojrzenie: z polskiej brygady kawalerii nie pozostało nic…" Kurfürst (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is not what the Luftwaffe's pilots were told they were doing or what they thought they were doing. After all the motivation of the unit would have suffered if they would have been told: go to brutality bomb women and children. The reality of the matter is that they almost completely devasted a city causing countless civilians deaths in the proccess for no justifiable reason. No amount of spin can change that. Loosmark (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Kill without mercy all men, woman, children etc... sounds familiar?--Jacurek (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
...What worries me a lot is that there are many young people among the new generation of Germans, raised already on western and democratic values, who have trouble comming to terms with the criminal Nazi past of their country…I see that happening more and more..--Jacurek (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source that can be cited for this conspiracy theory, that Luftwaffe aircrews were instructed to bomb the polish military unit in the vicinity, in order to keep up unit morale, whereas the "secret goal" being the destruction of the city itself? In lieu of a source, I believe the only NPOV would be to note that they were ordered to bomb military, and due to fog, poor visilibity, the city was hit severely by mistake (ie. as per two RSSs note), and that modern Polish historian(s) (can any be cited?) consider the even a terror attack. Or perhaps better, due to article lenght and NPOV issues, simply note the "controversial air attack on Wielun" in the text? Loosmark, do I read the Stuka pilots account in Polish that he aimed and bombed in belief (true or not) Polish cavarly in the city? Jacurek, your comments are again have an uncivil and unconstructive tone. Please refrain from such comments and concentrate on the contents of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeat: I presumed that there were German troops near the bridge ready to seize it. Is this incorrect? (unanswered). Were there German units on the periphery of Wielun when it was bombed? (Unanswered) What was the scope of the Polish bombing of Berlin? (unanswered) Can you read the ISBN number off the book you are using as a reference? (no ISBN on link given that I can see). Is this book by a historian with supported analysis, or is he parroting primary sources - or something in between? (unanswered)
I'm not citing sources, I'm asking entirely reasonable questions questions about yours. Hohum (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not citing sources" (Hohum) - you should. You were asked to cite them. I don't see the relevance of your questions - perhaps you should clarify if it has any merit to the article. Yes, this is a book by a historian with supported analysis. Wikipedia relies on reliable, published secondary sources. These are reliable secondary sources. The ISBN and other details of the book have you have been already given - I see not why you keep asking for something that was supported to you already. Did you scroll down on the page given to you...? If not, here are the details: Book: Ju 87 Stuka Volume One: Luftwaffe Ju 87 Dive-bomber Units 1939-1941 Author: Peter C. Smith ISBN: 1903223695 ISBN-13:9781903223697, 978-1903223697 Publishing Date: May 2007 Publisher: Classic Publications Kurfürst (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A book about a specific airplane is not a proper source for the crimes of Luftwaffe because they tend to focus on machines rather than anything on else. Same as for example a good source for the crimes of the Waffen SS wouldn't be a book about the Tiger tank. Loosmark (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but it seems you have made them without actually seeing the book. Its not about the Stuka dive bomber, but Stuka dive bomber operations. There are 10 pages on the technical details of the airplane, including the history and development of German doctrine around the dive bomber, the rest is a description of Stuka operations. Alone for the Polish operations, nine pages are devoted, covering only Stuka operations. The rest describes Stuka operations from Norway to operations in the USSR until the end of 1941. "This book covers the pre-war development of the Stuka concept in Germany and early dive bomber prototypes, as well as the aircraft's initial deployment and its central role in the early campaigns against Poland and Norway and in the blitzkrieg war in the West against the Low Countries adn France. The operational history of the aircraft continues through the Channel Battles and the Battle of Britain and in the Mediterranean theatre in the attacks on Malta and Crete. This volume concludes with the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa, the war against Russia. Written by Peter C. Smith, an internationally renowned authority on dive bombers and the Ju 87 in particular, the book contains an impressive selction of historic photos, arworks, and first-hand accounts from those who flew the aircraft." Kurfürst (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to cite sources; I'm not adding contentious content to the article. The reasons for my questions seem clear given the context of the rest of this thread of discussion. However, I will explain, in case you really don't understand the blindingly obvious.
I presumed that there were German troops near the bridge ready to seize it. Is this incorrect? (unanswered) - Asked in order to determine if it is strategic bombing or tactical support - which is directly relevant on whether it should be included in a strategic bombing article.
Were there German units on the periphery of Wielun when it was bombed? (Unanswered) - Asked for same reason.
What was the scope of the Polish bombing of Berlin? (unanswered) - Asked to determine notability. If it's a pathetically weak force which did no significant damage, it hardly bears inclusion. Especially since you just added the Berlin bombing again, as part of an edit that had nothing to do with its description - twice. [14] [15]
Is this book by a historian with supported analysis, or is he parroting primary sources - or something in between? (unanswered) - Asked because it's directly relevant to its quality as a reference.
Hohum (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • German troops near the Vistula bridge during the first aerial attack on the war: Smith notes that Stukas special mission was to bomb the fuse boxes on the Polish side of the river, so that a train with army engineer specialist can seize it intact. Draw your own conclusions.
  • German troops near Wielun. Its hard to say, but looks probable - it can be said that the said the concerned Stuka units were 'cooperate closely with the 8., 10. and 14 Armee Striking up north from Slovakia in a right hook. TheyWielun was seized on the first day of the war, by the evening, shorty after Stukas attacked.
  • What was the scope of the Polish bombing of Berlin? - already answered.
  • Is this book by a historian with supported analysis, or is he parroting primary sources - or something in between? - already answered, twice. Yes, a historian with supported analysis. Kurfürst (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers for as far as they go. I can't find any point where you have given the scope and notability of the Polish bombing of Berlin, only a citation that it occurred. Hohum (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote myself from earlier : 'Willmott notes the occuring of the event (ie. the Polish bombing of Berlin), but does not details the extent of the damage done by the bombers in the city. ' That is as much I can tell about it. It seems to me as relevant, being the first - clearly strategic - bombing of Germany in World War II. Kurfürst (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we can't tell it's scope or effectiveness - or any detail whatsoever, it doesn't seem notable enough to include. Hohum (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a wikipedia policy for that please - I don't think its a wiki policy. The attack obviously has great importance, being the first bomber attack on the German capitol in the war. It is verifiable, supported by reliable secondary source. In any case, the same can be said about several bombings mentioned in the article. Should these be removed as well? For example there is absolutely no detail or scope about the allaged 14 September raid on the Jewish Quarter - and its almost entirely certain that the source mixes up with the similiar events of the previous day. Kurfürst (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ROC, WP:Consensus. I don't think it's relevant as it offers no value to the article. This may be true about other passages in the article, but I'm not currently discussing them. Great importance, yet you can only find one secondary reference about it and even it doesn't give any details beyond the date? Hohum (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is: Is the first bombing of Berlin/Germany in the war not relevant to the article? Are to operations of the Polish Air Force not relevant to the article or totally irrelevent? I believe they are. Currently the section of article on the Polish campaign in 95% describes only German operations. Should it be 100%? That does not sound very WP:NPOV to me. Kurfürst (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's your question. My point is, if it's of great importance, there would be a lot more, detailed, evidence of it. NPOV? Some might argue that the Polish bombing of unknown scope is being mentioned in order to excuse German bombing of well reported scope. The compromise might be be to include the Polish bombing of Berlin, but to mention that it was of unknown size and effectiveness, with unknown casualties, if any. I still think it's useless information due to it's vagueness. Hohum (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You are very correct Hohum and I fully agree with you.--Jacurek (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise you sugessted, too. The problem is, literature in English is almost non-existant on Polish Air Force operations - but I don't think it means that there weren't any. Kurfürst (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be in English, they do need to be verifiable and of the required quality. The first bombing attack of Berlin in WW2 being by Polish aircraft would seem to be something that should be in more than one English book, and being an exceptional claim, needs exceptional sources. Hohum (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Berlin and the Wehrmachtbericht

I don't want to flame the discussion again but I think that this bit of information should not be neglected. The German Wehrmachtberich, biased as it may be, for the first time mentioned attacks on Berlin on the 22 June 1940. It reads "Auch in der Nacht zum 22. Juni unternahmen feindliche Flugzeuge Einflüge nach Nord- und Westdeutschland und griffen erstmals auch die Umgebung von Berlin mit Bomben an" (Also in the night of 22 June did enemy aircraft fly to northern and western Germany and for the first time attacked the area of Berlin with bombs). Cuxhaven, according to the Wehrmachtbericht, was already attacked on 5 September 1939. So while the Wehrmachtbericht admits attacks on German territory as early as 5 September 1939 it does not mention a single attack on Berlin until June 1940. Probably that doesn't mean much to those that think that the Wehrmachtbericht was fake, but consider: not to have mentioned an attack on Berlin at such an early stage of the war when things were still going according to the German plan would have been very untruthful, which the people of Berlin surely would have noticed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This article obviously needs a request for comment from a neutral editor. A well identifiable group of Polish editors (Jacurek, Loosmark, Radeks, Piotrious) make what seems to be a coordinated removal of cited information, with no identifiable ground of objection, since they refuse to engage in a discussion about their specific problems with the material (from the same source they find acceptable otherwise..). When consensus is being formed with editors who are ready to engage in discussion, they simply ignore it, and keep reverting cited information on the grounds that 'there is no consensus' and other rather vague pretexts ('controverisal' 'POV pushing' etc.) - and of course they make it impossible to reach any sort of consensus involving them because they are not willing to enter the process in the first place. Since there seems to be no point of doing this back and forth, I call for an RfC. Kurfürst (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I called for some help from WPMILHIST yesterday. . Hohum (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was about time. Kurfürst (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction Needed-I am from Missouri. You have got to show me

  • Steve Zaloga's book on the 1939 Campaign is mentioned, I have the book. The reference on the use of telephones on page 147 is wrong. The citation is a possible fabrication.
  • Hooton, E.R (2007). Luftwaffe at War; Gathering Storm 1933-39: Volume 1. London: Chervron/Ian Allen Is another possible forgery, I can’t find this book on Amazon, Google Books or ABE

I am assuming good faith and ask for a correction of this citation. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually seems he gave an uncorrect ISBN for the Hooton book. It should be ISBN 1903223717 Loosmark (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We still have a problem, The citation in question says Page 182 [16] The book [17] has only 96 freeking pages!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OMG, good eye Woogie10w, this is all bogus !
Wrong Hooton book. Phoenix Triumphant (1994) p. 182. - "Because Polish divisions had only nineteen radios (compared with 133 in a German division) they relied extensively upon the civil telephone network, but with switchboards wrecked and lines cut Polish communications became 'marginal at best'." It, in turn references Zaloga and Madej. (1985). The Polish Campaign p. 127. Hohum (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Zaloga does not mention the use of the civil telephone network on P. 127, only that C3 was disrupted--Woogie10w (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Hooton book I wonder what else needs to be fixed in this article--Woogie10w (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is what we're trying to address :) Hohum (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should be about strategic not tactical bombing. The article is flawed because it neglects the development of US & UK doctrine on strategic bombing and its implementation. Giulio Douhet is not mentioned at all in the article!!The article has gotten sidetracked on a petty issue related to ther tactical NOT the strategic use of airpower.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. However, we probably need to get past the current hurdle first? Hohum (talk) 21:33, 12 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) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted before, the original references were correctly added, but one editor was rather agitated about using Hooton 2007. I suppose in the witch hunt for 'uproper sources', the constant severing of sentences in half etc., the references simply become bugged. I have corrected them recently, but then again someone saw it better to revert back to the wrong references. Kurfürst (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allaged raid on the Ghetto on 14 September

It seems the source given (a pretty generic encyclopedia) simply mixes up this attack with the one on the previous day (which, tellingly, it does not even mention). Quite clearly there were no LW attacks on Warsaw at all on the 14 of September - sources specifically state this. Also of note that there is not a single source claiming an attack on the Jewish Quarter on the 14. Kurfürst (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Manipulated citation from Hooton (1994) and Corum

An editor rewritten the following sentences from Hooton:

1,

  • Original sentence: Subsequent attacks on Warsaw targeted bridges on the Vistula river, communications centers around the city and munitions dumps.
  • Manipulated sentence: Subsequent attacks on Warsaw targeted civilian facilities and historical buildings, water works, hospitals, market places, schools all bridges on the Vistula river, communications centers around the city and munitions dumps.

The reference also seems to have been removed.

2a,

  • Original sentece: The bombing of rail network, crossroads and troop concentrations played havoc on Polish mobilisation, while attacks upon targets in towns and cities disrupted command and control by wrecking the antiquated Polish signal network:
  • Manipulated sentence: [18] 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:

Note that the reference of the importance of attacks - "Because Polish divisions had only nineteen radios (compared with 133 in a German division) they relied extensively upon the civil telephone network, but with switchboards wrecked and lines cut Polish communications became 'marginal at best'." Hooton 182. - was also removed.

2b, Removal of note of X-Gerät use - noteworthy because it was the first use of advanced VHF radio navigation for night bombing during the war (same system was used later over Britain, but this was the first such mission)

3, The sentece from Corum was also manipulated, and then eventually removed completely.

Kurfürst (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial(?) sources

Editor Loosmark seems to have problems with 'controversial' sources added to the article. I cannot possible understand why - for example, the following sources were added recently:

  • Hooton 2007, p. 183.
  • Hooton 2007, p. 182. and also Zaloga and Madej, 1985. p. 147. for the same ref
  • Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  • Hooton 1994, p. 187 and also Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 248.

All of these sources were already used in the article previously, for example, Hooton, Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase describing the great bombings of Warsaw: 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", but his request was rejected.[28]

and

On 25 September the Luftwaffe flew 1,150 sorties and dropped 560 tonnes of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries.[29][30] 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.[31][32][33][34][35]

So why is Hooton a good source once, then suddenly a 'controversial' source? Same for Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase - one editor noted that its a trustworthy source, and there were no objections from other editors either. Kurfürst (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hooton which one..Links to the pages in English please.--Jacurek (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You would only need to look up the references...

  1. Hooton, E.R (1994). Phoenix Triumphant; The Rise and Rise of the Luftwaffe. London: Arms & Armour Press. ISBN 1 86019 964 X
  2. Hooton, E.R (1997). Eagle in Flames; The Fall of the Luftwaffe. London: Arms & Armour Press. ISBN 1 86019 995 X
  3. Hooton, E.R (2007). Luftwaffe at War; Gathering Storm 1933-39: Volume 1. London: Chervron/Ian Allen. ISBN 978-1-903223-71-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
  4. Hooton, E.R (2007). Luftwaffe at War; Blitzkrieg in the West: Volume 2. London: Chervron/Ian Allen. ISBN 978-1-85780-272-6.

E. R. Hooton : Edward R. Hooton is a defense writer, who has authored multiple books including publications for the Jane's Information Group. Among his works is Phoenix Triumphant, a book about the early history of the Luftwaffe with much documentation provided by the Aviation Historian Alex Vanags-Baginskis. Kurfürst (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Kurfurst does not have the sources:
  1. Hooton, E.R (2007). Luftwaffe at War; Gathering Storm 1933-39: Volume 1. London: Chervron/Ian Allen. ISBN 978-1-903223-71-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
  2. Hooton, E.R (2007). Luftwaffe at War; Blitzkrieg in the West: Volume 2. London: Chervron/Ian Allen. ISBN 978-1-85780-272-6.
I have these sources, and have used them in this article. And they say nothing in support of what he claims. Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Dapi89, this is what I thought..I also had trouble confirming some of his sources before. --Jacurek (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Take note that Hooton, E.R (1994). Phoenix Triumphant; The Rise and Rise of the Luftwaffe. London: Arms & Armour Press. ISBN 1 86019 964 X was originally used as a source for all of this statements, but editor Dapi89 was very keen to use the 2007 book by Hooton, though the two are almost entire identical. I guess the correct reference to the 1994 book was lost in the remove-sources-I-dont-like frenzy, but it has been corrected now that each source properly refer to the 1994 book. Kurfürst (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have obtained a copy of Phoenix Triumphant and have verified most (all?) of the references to it, although some didn't give the full context, which I have now added. Hohum (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but the source also contains the clear references about Seewald issuing military targets on the 13, and that the bombings on latter part of September were against a defended city, which by the Hague convention was permissable under international law. This is also part of the context, so lets not stop halfway... Clearly the events were of much greater complexity. Kurfürst (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have only added things that the source you already used quite clearly says, which give additional context. Something the source very clearly says, cannot be ignored, for example: regarding 22 September: "the bombing nine days earlier had clearly been a terror attack". That is the authors historical conclusion. Hohum (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Kurfürst, Hohum has just demonstrated what is a more balanced use of that source. Instead of complaining again, please try to emulate him in the future. Loosmark (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to his edits. However, if you also wish to have a more balanced used of the source, take note that the very same source also says:
  • Polish divisions relied extensively upon the civillian telephone network.[36][37]
  • 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[38]; Seywald was relieved shortly thereafter.[39]
  • 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, .[40][41]

Hohum can confirm that as a neutral editor. For the sake of balanced use of the source, I take you would agree that these circumstances should also be emphasized in the article? Kurfürst (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope it should not be empshasized (and lets be completely clear no international rules allowed the bombing of civilians, hospitals and churches). Instead we could and should emphasize a bit more the suffering of the civilians under the bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe, how many people became homeless, the material damage to Warsaw, the historical buildings destroyed, etc etc etc Loosmark (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is about strategic bombing in WWII, not the actions of individuals at a tactical level. I don't have a problem with the phone network being mentioned - it's sourced, and speaks directly to the effectiveness of the bombing in limiting communications. Richtofen being furious seems to be minutia. Ref the "fortress city" quote - despite noting this, Hooton concludes without ambiguity that the bombing of the 13 September was a terror raid, so it seems pointless to include it an article about Strategic bombing in WWII - while it would make sense in an article purely about the Bombing of Warsaw. Hohum (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you mix up the two bombings - the one on the 13 and the 25 - Hooton mentions that the 13 attack was clearly intended as a terror raid, whereas in effect the targets bombed were of military nature because subordinates executed it as such. A fact, and it should be mentioned, otherwise don't mention the 13 attack at all. Furthermore Hooton notes that as opposed to the Sept 13 attack, the attack on the 25 was against a fortified city, and was perfectly legit under the rules of war, set down in Hague about the bombardment of defended cities. So why are the article, selectively quoting Hooton, implies that both attacks were terror raids? The fact that the 13 attacks eventually target purely military targets, while the 25 attack is just as integral as the mentioning of the bombings. Its a fairly odd practice to mention only half of the story about both bombing attacks.

Currently the article as is, is grossly selective about the facts from the same source. Kurfürst (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Kurfurst, can you provide the exact text for this telephone claim from Zaloga and Madej, 1985. p. 147 that you added here [19]?radek (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about the bombing on 13 September. Hooton concludes decisively that it is a terror raid despite Luftwaffe insistence that it was against military targets. We don't need to go into all the surrounding argument because it is beyond the scope of this article. In the article I haven't implied the 13 and 25 September were both terror raids (although Hooton is a hairs breadth from it in the relevant paragraph of his book), and I don't think the article reads that way. Regarding selectively using Hooton; it's odd hearing that accusation from you when you've missed some important and unmissable phrases and context. A bit more civility and assumption of good faith is in order. Hohum (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What you ignore completely is that Hooton in the two following paragraphs deals in a very detailed manner about the nature of September 13 attack - that Seywald sabotaged it, and attacked purely military targets, the operations was shambles. Hooton also makes absolutely clear that by around the 20 September 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.[42][43] These are absolutely relevant if we want to mention any of these attacks. Kurfürst (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't ignore is Hooton's unequivocal conclusion about 13 September. I haven't made an edit to the article regarding the 25 September. Hohum (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It was never a question of the discussion what you are not ignoring, it is what you ignore completely - that Hooton in the two following paragraphs deals in a very detailed manner about the nature of September 13 attack - that Seywald sabotaged it, and attacked purely military targets. Regards, Kurfürst (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish Air Force bombed Berlin

Kurfürst added again the blatant lie that the Polish Air Force bombed Berlin. Loosmark (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be from a source that you do not agree with, but that does not make it a lie, please assume good faith. I think you should strike out that comment and consider addressing the issue with language that is more likely to build a consensus. --PBS (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not "disagreeing" with the source, I'm saying it's a plain and simple lie. If a source would claim that the USAF or the RAF bombed the Vatican I'd also not simply "disagree" with that. Loosmark (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You think it is lie, but please see the first paragraph of WP:V, do you have a source that contradicts it (eg the first raid on Berlin was an RAF raid on such and such a date or a direct denial) if not the usual way to deal with this sort of source, is first decide if it is a reliable source, (by reliable I mean in the sense used in WP:SOURCES and if so then see WP:NPOV and if Kurfurst wants to include it, then put it in the form of xyz states in abc that "the Polish Air Force bombed Berlin ..." and if you have another source that refutes it ...,but zyx states that ..." --PBS (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
There are no real records of Polish planes reaching Berlin in 1939. This never happened to my knowledge, but agree that perhaps it should be called an "an error" made by Kurfurst rather made by than a lie.--Jacurek (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
@PBS: In 1939 the Luftwaffe bombed Los Angeles. Now please try to find me a source which explicitly says that in 1939 the Luftwaffe didn't bomb Los Angeles. And if/when you manage to do that please go to the Los Angeles article and add that source ACB says it was bombed in 1939 and that the source XYZ says it wasn't. Loosmark (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any sources stating that in 1939 the Luftwaffe bombed Los Angeles..? No...? Now you see. Kurfürst (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the actions of 1 September 1939: "One reason for the Luftwaffe's delusion was the absence of Polish bombers, which were being held back pending the discovery of good targets". Hooton, Phoenix Triumphant, p. 180. Hohum (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Its odd though why Berlin had a no less than 4 different air raids in the early days of September - I guess the Polish bombers attacked at night. Kurfürst (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, even if that was true that some "drunk Nazi" in Berlin or crazy Goebbels claimed that he saw lone Polish bomber dropping a bomb on Berlin on September 1st 1939 and then some years later somebody recorded that absurd claim you are now insisting on insert into the article, how this compares to all of the atrocities Luftwaffe committed in Polish cities dropping thousands of bombs on civilian targets on the first day of the Invasion of Poland alone? What is the purpose of that information? Please tell me?--Jacurek (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, now it's 4 raids?! Loosmark (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We have: One quality source which is an overview of the entire war, reporting Polish bombers attacked Berlin without any useful detail, making it almost worthless to include, and a severe lack of quality corroborating sources for such an apparently noteworthy event. With another quality source that focuses on the Luftwaffe's air war, saying no Polish bombers made attacks on 1 September. I can't see any reason to include it. Hohum (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Me neither and so do think all others. Kurfürst however will claim that consensus have been reached to include this information. You will see some time later.--Jacurek (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hooton certainly does not say that no Polish bombers made attacks on 1 September - care to cite? It reads that they did not interfere with LW operations. And oddly, Hooton on Page 180, notes that on 2 September 24 Karas bombers attacked the German armour spearhead. We have quality sources stating it, and none to challenge it. It seems the actual reason not to include it is because Polish bombings are not to be mentioned at all. Kurfürst (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Look up a couple of entries, I already cited it. 2 September isn't 1 september. Hohum (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Kurfürst do you even understand what is strategic bombing? Karaś attacking German tanks isn't strategic bombing for crying out loud. Loosmark (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been searching Google books: Selected Vital Records from the Jamaican Daily Gleaner: Life on the Island of Jamaica as seen through Newspaper Extracts, Volume 2: 1916-1939, Heritage Books, ISBN 0788445839, 9780788445835 Page 484 It has 2 entries about this:

  • September 2, 1939. "GERMANY & POLAND AT WAR CAPITALS BOMBED"
  • September 6, 1939. "... Thirty Polish 'Planes Bomb Berlin"

It does not mean it happened, but at least one contemporary newspaper published the events in English. -- PBS (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Years ago I remember this mentioned by Steve Zaloga over dinner, I believe he said a few bombs were dropped in the outskirts of Berlin. This is just hearsay that needs to be verified.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how much we can trust some paper from Jamaica but like I said before, if even it was true (to my knowledge it is not) that one Polish bomber some how reached Berlin in 1939, what "damage" did he made if you compare that to damage caused by Luftwaffe in their mass terror attack on all Polish cities? This article is about strategic bombing of civilians and not about one questionable plane attack of one pilot who probably (if true) acted on it's own and we don't even know the story is real?--Jacurek (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In any case this is trivia if it happened, a few bombs in Berlin's suburbs is not worthy of mention in the article. From the Nazi POV this can be used to justify the bombing of Warsaw that killed 25-50,000 civilians--Woogie10w (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More:

  • "The China monthly review", Published by J.W. Powell, 1939 Item notes: v. 90-91 pp. 195,393 "German planes are bombing Polish towns. Polish planes have bombed Berlin. British planes have bombed the German naval bases at Wilhelmshaven and Cux-taven"
  • Great pages in history from the Wisconsin state journal, 1852-2002 By Frank M. Denton, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2002, ISBN 0299183343, 9780299183349 p.47 Sep 1. 1939 "PARIS--Polish sources report Berlin attacked by Polish bombers. ..."
  • Aeronautics, 1939 Item notes: v. 1-2, p. 26 "Tuesday 5th September", "POLISH broadcasts claimed that 30 Polish aeroplanes had bombed Berlin and all returned safely. German reconnaissance flights were reported to have been ..."
  • The Chronicle of the Lodz Ghetto, 1941-1944‎ by Lucjan Dobroszycki, Richard Lourie "On the 6th, 7th, and 8th of September, the Polish press reported that Polish ... that Berlin had been bombed by thirty Polish planes, and that French troops" No preview available just what came up in the Google search
  • Here is a primary source The War Journal Of Norman Mingay "Wed. Sept 6th 1939, 30 Polish planed bomb Berlin. RAF drop 3,000,000 more leaflets over Ruhr..."

I am not suggesting that these should be used as sources, just that there seem to be a number of sources that claim the bombing took place and also some state the calims originate from Polish sources --PBS (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not think that anyone is justifying German bombing of Polish cities because Polish bombers dropped a few bombs on German cities, but I think these sources hit on the head the first sentence of this section: "Kurfürst added again the blatant lie that the Polish Air Force bombed Berlin." --PBS (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, in any case the Polish air raid is trivia that needs to be deleted from the article --Woogie10w (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree as far as lie thing. I think that some of the reports may have been also a result of Polish war propaganda at the time to improve army morale etc. In any case if these really happened such operations were so insignificant that most historical sources don't even take note of it. This is just like taking a note of the rape victim kicking back the attacker in the leg. "She was raped but she also kicked him in the leg". kind of thing.--Jacurek (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not say that the Polish bombing of Berlin should or should not be included, I have not made up my mind on that. I just think that the sources I found -- with the exception of the Lucjan Dobroszycki source, for which there is no text available on line (only the Google extract) -- are too close to primary sources to be used in a Wikipedia article. --PBS (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a book by R.Peczkowski, B.Belcarz "White Eagles, The Aircraft, Men and Operations of the Polish Air Force 1918-1939" ISBN-10: 1902109732 which is dedicated exclusively to the PAF and which among other things describes what the Polish air units were doing in 1939 and there is no mention of any air raid on Berlin. Loosmark (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The Nazis claimed the Poles bombed Gleiwitz and started the war, the Berlin raid could also be a Nazi operation. This needs further research. Did the Poles ever take credit for it? or is it just a Germam claim? I don't know. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
"Did the Poles ever take credit for it? or is it just a Germam claim?" Most of the contemporary English language sources above say their sources were Polish, non claim that their sources were German. --PBS (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Aircraft in Profile n.258 by author J.Cynk dedicated to the P.37 Łoś bomber describes that the bombers were used first withheld from action for a couple of days, then used as reconnaissance and finaly against german armour units. There is no mention of this fathom Berlin raid. Loosmark (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, first time I have heard about Poles bombing Berlin in 1939 was from Kurfürst. If this operation had any significant effect (if they really happened), it would be in most history books and for sure in Polish ones. Again, we are comparing an Ocean (German terror bombing) to a glass of water (Polish bombing of Berlin if really even happened).--Jacurek (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a reliable source, preferably an official history published after the war that describes this raid. The info I have on the Polish PZL 37 Los does not indicate that it bombed Berlin, the only info I have is that the Polish bombed in east Prussia. Again we need a better source that is reliable, just because it is in print does not make it right, a modern pop historian may be copying Nazi disinformation from the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Most the the sources I have trawled up are not pop histories but contemporary sources, and most of them claim Polish origins, Aeronautics for example is from a neutral source that today would be considered a reliable source. Why are you so convinced that it is German disinformation from the war? Which is a statement you have made on once but twice in this thread. It is far more likely that if the raids did not happen, that (given the contemporary news reports) the claims are Polish disinformation not German. --PBS (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced, I am just skeptical. How reliable are the sources from 1939? What does the official Polish History say? Please help me, I just use basic Polish everyday to buy bread & doughnuts here in Brooklyn--Woogie10w (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Steven Zaloga in his September campaign on Page 147 says- “The Karas & Los bombers made repeated low-altitude attacks on German columns, and claimed extensive damage to the German tank formations. The Los bombers were not designed for these types of attacks, but the High Command refused to use them against German industrial targets, ports or other facilities where they could have had more effect. Zaloga makes no mention of any Berlin raid. My hunch is that some trigger happy AA units may have sent a few stray shells on civilian propery near Berlin and Goebbles opened his big mouth.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That is what probably happened if true. Lonely pilot taking on suicide mission on Berlin. I can't even see such a person penetrating German air defences on a technologically inferior plane...but whatever. Polish Air force was unable to conduct any raids on Berlin. I am sure they would not mind if they could but it was just impossible. What is happening here is just an intent of inserting questionable information to justify German carpet bombing of Poland in 1939 by saying "Hey, Poles also did it!" This is my opinion on all this.--Jacurek (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Poles did in fact participate in the bombing of Germany with No. 300 Polish Bomber Squadron, which was a unit of the RAF Bomber Command. The article needs to devote more space to Bomber Command and the 7th USAF and less to the tactical use of air power--Woogie10w (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Correct.--Jacurek (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are a great number of sources stating that Berlin was bombed by the Polish air force:

  • Willmott, in his GREAT CRUSADE
  • "The China monthly review", Published by J.W. Powell, 1939 Item notes: v. 90-91 pp. 195,393 "German planes are bombing Polish towns. Polish planes have bombed Berlin. British planes have bombed the German naval bases at Wilhelmshaven and Cux-taven"
  • Great pages in history from the Wisconsin state journal, 1852-2002 By Frank M. Denton, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2002, ISBN 0299183343, 9780299183349 p.47 Sep 1. 1939 "PARIS--Polish sources report Berlin attacked by Polish bombers. ..."
  • Aeronautics, 1939 Item notes: v. 1-2, p. 26 "Tuesday 5th September", "POLISH broadcasts claimed that 30 Polish aeroplanes had bombed Berlin and all returned safely. German reconnaissance flights were reported to have been ..."
  • The Chronicle of the Lodz Ghetto, 1941-1944‎ by Lucjan Dobroszycki, Richard Lourie "On the 6th, 7th, and 8th of September, the Polish press reported that Polish ... that Berlin had been bombed by thirty Polish planes, and that French troops" No preview available just what came up in the Google search
  • Here is a primary source The War Journal Of Norman Mingay "Wed. Sept 6th 1939, 30 Polish planed bomb Berlin. RAF drop 3,000,000 more leaflets over Ruhr..."

Selected Vital Records from the Jamaican Daily Gleaner: Life on the Island of Jamaica as seen through Newspaper Extracts, Volume 2: 1916-1939, Heritage Books, ISBN 0788445839, 9780788445835 Page 484 It has 2 entries about this:

  • September 2, 1939. "GERMANY & POLAND AT WAR CAPITALS BOMBED"
  • September 6, 1939. "... Thirty Polish 'Planes Bomb Berlin"

I am truly wondering what else would be required so that the statement becomes 'verifiable'... [or is it still http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=294119151&oldid=294119033 'unreferenced'] Kurfürst (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was explained to you several times before why we all think this is not appropriate here. Please refer to this and other talk pages. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. These newspapers accounts from 1939 are obviously worthless. They are just reporting various rumours that were swirling around at that time. Did "China monthly review" or "Wisconsin State Journal" have a reporter in Poland or Germany to verify this? I find it laughable that anyone is seriously considering treating these sensational rumours as reliable sources that should be trusted. Just because something is indexed by Google does not mean it is reliable. Google's project nowadays is to index all information ever published, without any consideration as to its quality. Think about that before using text dredged up by Google to prove anything. 74.14.27.14 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Most editors don't seem to be in favour of mentioning the alleged Polish bombing of Berlin. The editors that found the scant references specifically pointed out how poor they were instead of grasping them as real evidence. Several other quality sources make distinct points about the lack of Polish bomber operations. I don't think the passage is in the article at the moment, and I don't think it should be added. Hohum (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no 'allaged' about it, there is now an overwhelming evidence that it happened. If you wish to make the exceptional claim that it did not happen, present your exceptional sources. I don't think that even in revisionist historian books one could find a reference to such. 'Several other quality sources' - that sounds VERY vague to me, if not entirely unlikely. Everyone can say he reviewed 'Several other quality sources' and 'couldn't find it'. Since the Polish operation involving 30 bombers bombing Berlin has obvious significance for already described reasons, it should be included. Kurfürst (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Overhelming evidence? You must be kidding. All the "evidence" comes from ridiculously unreliable sources. If such a bombings would have indeed occured there is no doubt that it would have been covered and explained in the works of Polish aviation experts. The reality of the matter is that the Łoś bombers of the PAF were first held as a strategic reserve and then used against German armour units on the battlefields. Loosmark (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that I managed to find a source for the Berlin bombing from Polish aviation experts, too. Kurfürst (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Poland had 36 operational medium bombers in total during the whole campaign (read PZL.37 Łoś). If all of them bombed Berlin in a maximum effort operation on the first day of the war, I am sure it would be easy to find lots of information about it. For one thing, there would be at least one feature length film made in Poland about it :).
Kurfürst, I am sure this is not your intention but by playing up this supposed bombing of Berlin you are actually playing into the hands of Polish nationalists. They would have loved it if such a thing had occurred. In reality, the Polish Air Force was puny and very badly equipped (partly due to stupid development decisions before the war) and achieved very little during the whole campaign. The Luftwaffe was very effective in neutralizing it from the start. 74.15.23.115 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also noteworthy that there were 114 servicable PZL.23 Karaś recce-bombers (see Jerzy B. Cink) at the start of the war (btw wiki article mentions one of these bombed a factory in Ohlau). There is doubt about what you say, but as they say, where there is smoke, there is usually a fire as well. Berlin was a magnet for the Polish ultras in 1939, IIRC there were some - from 20/20 hindsight - rather surreal dreams about marching into Berlin. Considering the political climate in Poland in 1939 (and generally between the 20s and 30s), a prestige/propaganda raid on Berlin as soon as the war started seems entirely pausible to me, esp. if its mentioned all over the place. (PS: Also agree about the stupid decisions from the higlhy conservative Polish military being responsible for the poor shape of the PLW in 1939. The pilots and aircraft designers were certainly not to be blamed!) Kurfürst (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The PZL.23 Karaś was totally inadequate for that type of mission. where there is smoke, there is usually a fire as well, Berlin was a magnet for the Polish ultras in 1939"? go trolling somewhere else. Loosmark (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Macksey has argued all that was required was local superiority over 11 Group
  2. ^ Corum, 1995., p. 7
  3. ^ James Corum 1997, p. 240
  4. ^ Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 248.
  5. ^ Spetzler, 1956. p. 259
  6. ^ Planstudie 1939, Heft. I-III, BA-MA RL 2 II/1-3.
  7. ^ ObdL FüSt Ia Nr. 5375/39 g. Kdos. Chefsache, Entwurf, Weisung Nr. 2 für das X. Fliegerkorps vom 11. November 1939
  8. ^ ObdL FüSt Ia Nr. 5445/39 vom 16 Dezember 1939.
  9. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 190.
  10. ^ Speidel, p. 18
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference playground was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Bob Golan, Jacob Howland, Bette Howland, "A long way home", University Press of America, 2005, pg. 11, [20]
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grab was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Antony Polonsky, Norman Davies, Jews in Eastern Poland and the USSR, 1939-46, Macmillan in association with the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London, 1991, pg. 110, [21]
  15. ^ George Topas, "The iron furnace: a Holocaust survivor's story", University Press of Kentucky, 1990, [22]
  16. ^ Andrew Hempel, "Poland in World War II: An Illustrated Military History", pg. 14, [23]
  17. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
  18. ^ Speidel, p. 18
  19. ^ Willmott, 1991. p. 236
  20. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  21. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  22. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  23. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  24. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  25. ^ Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 248.
  26. ^ Der Prozess gegen die Hauptskriegsverbrecher vor der Internationalen Militärgerichtshof Nürnberg. 14 November 1945 - 1 Oktober 1946. Volume 9. Nürnberg, 1947. p. 759.
  27. ^ Speidel, p. 71
  28. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 187.
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference Enc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Hooton 2007, p. 92.
  31. ^ Hooton 2007, p. 92.
  32. ^ Smith&Creek, 2004. pp. 63-64
  33. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 188.
  34. ^ Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 249.
  35. ^ Electronic Encyclopaedia of Civil Defense and Emergency Management
  36. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 182.
  37. ^ Zaloga and Madej, 1985. p. 147.
  38. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  39. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 186.
  40. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 187.
  41. ^ Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 248.
  42. ^ Hooton 1994, p. 187.
  43. ^ Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase, 2000. p. 248.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II/Archive_1&oldid=1089896430"