Why was Coventry 'coventriert'?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Jan Gazda

Tony,

what is your basis for the assertion about the half of Britain´s GDP being consumed by Bomber Command? Johnson and Floud in The Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Volume III say that at its peak (in 1944) all Britain´s war related expenditures amounted to 53 % of its GDP. Given the manpower of the ground forces and navy and the physical quantities of armanents and equipment manufactured in 1944 it is highly unlikely that BC share could be anywhere above 20% of GDP.

Jan

You are right.
The figure, I believe, is a third, certainly not a half of GDP, but I will accept 20%.
Thank you for the correction.

My point was made by Sir James Grigg, Secretary of State for War, who said in 1944; "We have reached the extraordinary situation in which the labour devoted to the production of heavy bombers is believed to be equal to that allotted to the production of the whole equipment for the army".

And of course the contention is that 'dehousing' factory workers was counter-productive.

Tony

[John Beaman]

Gentlemen: once again a thread on a subject has degenerated into attacks on posters and has become meaningless. If this continues, I shall delete the thread.

[John Vasco]

Tony,
The simple point I am making is that once two countries go to war, basically, the gloves are off. Both sides are not interested in the 'splitting of hairs'. They'll go for any advantage they can gain over the opponent. 'Who started it' is a playground argument that neither side would really be interested in.

The unfortunate reality in WW2 was that ordinary people, as workers, became targets, once medium/long range bombing became possible. Indeed, as has been pointed out previously, the bombing of civilians in London happened in WW1. My father was as much a legitimate target as any soldier, sailor or airman, due to his being a skilled worker in a 'reserved' occupation (his call-up was knocked back three times because of the work he was involved in with the ATE company in Liverpool). I'm under no illusion about that. We have to move awy from the 'Waterloo' scenario of war and realise that populations were attacked at random on both sides with loss of innocent life. Shit like that happens in modern wars, Tony, and that's what I meant when I said in my first post in this thread 'Get real', because that is the reality of things whethere we like it, agree with it, or not.

[tcolvin]

So, John, you do agree with Phillip Knightley's statement that the RAF were the first to bomb civilians when "on the night of 10-11 May 1940 the RAF bombed München-Gladbach without provocation from Germany".

Tony

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Bruce Dennis

Before the bombing, at the decision making stage, it was either (a) a legitimate target, in which case how it was bombed is the next subject, or (b) not a legitimate target, in which case any attack would be wrong. This is the point, and since it was central to your overall argument on the commission of a war crime, it is worth clearing up: show us the proof that BC had information establishing the ineligible status of this city before it was chosen as a target or accept that the head of the RAF was right to bomb it.
Bruce

Lübeck was not a legitimate target because it fell under Article XXIV, Paragraph 3, shown below, of the Hague Conference of 1922/23;
1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective ....
2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition, or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
3) The bombardment of cities, town, villages, dwellings, or buildings not in the immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment."

To summarise; Bomber Command's aircraft had to abstain from bombing Lübeck because although Lübeck contained factories and ports making and handling military equipment and supplies, these could not be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population.

Tony

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

So, John, you do agree with Phillip Knightley's statement that the RAF were the first to bomb civilians when "on the night of 10-11 May 1940 the RAF bombed München-Gladbach without provocation from Germany".

Tony

Tony,

Were there military/industrial installations in/in the vicinity of München-Gladbach? Probably were? And it is known that our bombing accuracy was not exactly spot on at that time of war.

You see, it doesn't really matter on whit, once you are at war. And whether we like it or not, the British turn into absolute bastards when cornered and in a war situation. That is the reality, not the Hague convention and any of its articles.

By the way, the very things I mentioned, and you challenged me on them, are quoted by you in your reply above this post to Bruce Dennis...

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

To summarise; Bomber Command's aircraft had to abstain from bombing Lübeck because although Lübeck contained factories and ports making and handling military equipment and supplies, these could not be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population.

Tony

Tony,

Do you really, honestly, believe, having said that Lübeck "...contained factories and ports making and handling military equipment and supplies..." that that city should not have been attacked? I do think you have finally shot yourself in the foot on that one.

On your premise, bomber units of all nations should have been disbanded without a bomb being dropped... That's how absurd you argument has become. Liverpool docks got bombed - so did the civilian population; London docks got bombed - so did the civilian population; Croydon airfield got bombed - Purley Way, among others, got hit; the Supermarine Works in Southampton was targeted several times in September 1940 - the civilian population also got hit. Do you see a pattern emerging?

[tcolvin]

Dear John, if you read again the Protocols from the Hague Convention of 1922/23, which were written by Britain and others under strong RAF protest, then you will see the conditions under which bombing could take place.
It is not a question of my beliefs, and please do not make these posts ad hominem because John Beaman is watching.
Flender Werke and the port facilities handling iron ore could be bombed according to the Protocols, providing civilians were not at the same time bombed indiscriminately.
All of the examples that you give of bombing - Croydon airfield, Supermarine, and London Docks - were not war crimes under the protocols because the civilians were not bombed indiscriminately, AFAIK.
I suspect the GAF could even have produced evidence that in the bombing of Coventry only factories and gas holders were targeted, and evidence has been provided above that GAF units were given specific aiming points of military-industrial significance.
As for München-Gladbach I don't know the details, and am hoping that someone on this forum could explain the manner in which the RAF shattered the Protocols and began bombing civilians indiscriminately, if in fact they did do so. München-Gladbach city records, if they survived, would throw light on what actually happened.

As far as I am concerned, and it seems to be true for you also, this is the first time the RAF's bombing of München-Gladbach as early as May 10, 1940 has come to light, and it is significant information if true.

Remember, please, that 'The first casualty when war comes is truth'. The RAF suppressed the news about bombing München-Gladbach, according to Knightley.

It is amazing to me that this whole turgid matter of the legality and morality of bombing civilians in WW2 is still being debated, and even more surprising that it can still raise emotions.

Someone above rejected the comparison with the Holocaust. But that comparison came from Germans who said the only difference between a Jewish baby and a German baby was that the fire consuming the Jewish baby came from below in a crematorium, while the fire burning the German baby came from above courtesy of the RAF. You could add that Jewish babies were usually dead when burned, while the German babies were usually burnt alive.

Tony

[Juha]

Tony
By looking a map and remembering what happened on 10 May 1940 it should not be difficult to find out why München Gladbach was bombed, as The Bomber Command War Diaries says, BTW the correct date is 11/12 May 40, “to attack road and rail communications”

Now even if we forget what Legion Kondor did during the Spanish Civil War, LW levelled villages and towns in Poland from 1 Sept 39 onwards while attacking transport targets and killed many times more civilians there than those 4 killed in M-G, so what really are your point?

Juha

[Bruce Dennis]

In light of the present tone of the thread (post 48) I will abandon my unresolved points.

Bruce