The sinking of the SS Willhelm Gustloff
Mensch Meyer
released only a few months ago is "Titanic," it's about the sinking
of the ocean liner S.S. Titanic on April 15, 1912, with the loss of
1,513 lives, after the ship struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic.
Everyone has heard about the sinking of the Titanic, but very few
have heard about the sinking of the S.S. Wilhelm Gustloff, which
was the greatest maritime disaster in history. Where the Titanic
was a very big, expensive ship, and claimed to be virtually
"unsinkable," and went down on its maiden voyage with a record
number of celebrities and tycoons aboard , the Wilhelm Gustloff
went down with the loss of more than 7,000 lives. It is probably
the most under-reported but largest mariner disaster in history.
The SS Willhelm Gustloff was a German passenger liner. It was
sunk in the Baltic Sea on the night of January 30, 1945 by a Soviet
submarine. It was packed with nearly 8,000 Germans, most of them
women and children escaping from the advancing Soviet Army.
Most of these German refugees lived in East Prussia, a part of
Germany that the Communist and Western Allies had agreed would
be taken from Germany and given to the Soviet Union at the
end of the Second World War. Others lived in Danzig and the
surrounding area, which the Allies and Communists had decided
would be given to Poland. All of these refugees were fleeing in
terror from the Reds, who already had demonstrated with their
atrocities agains civilians in East Prussia what was in store for
any German unfortunate enough to fall into their hands.
During the last days of the war, these German civilians were
fleeing in terror from East Prussia, and for many of them the
only route of escape was across the icy Baltic Sea. They
crowded the port of Gotenhafen, near Danzig, hoping to find
passage to the west. Hitler ordered all available civilian ships
into the rescue effort. The Wilhelm Gustloff was one of them,
a 25,000-ton passenger liner. On January 30, 1945, when the
Gustloff steamed out of Gotenhafen it carried a crew of just
under 1,100 officers and men, 73 critically wounded soldiers,
373 young women of the Women's Naval Auxiliary, equivalent to
our WAVES, and more than 6,000 desperate refugees, most of
them women and children.
At just after 9:00 PM, when the Wilhelm Gustloff was 13 miles
off the coast of Pomerania, three torpedoes from the Soviet
submarine S-13, under the command of Captain A.I. Marinesko,
struck the ship. Ninety minutes later it sank beneath the icy waves
of the Baltic. Although a heroic effort to pick up survivors was made
by other German ships, only 1,100 were saved. The rest, more
than 7,000 Germans, died in the frigid water that night.
Are there any books or other sources of information on this
historic maritime disaster? When did the last survivors die, were
any ever interviewed?
" Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every
other man takes the right to knock him down for it..."
Samuel Johnson
dbja...@toronto.cbc.ca
See "The Cruelest Night," by Christopher Dobson, John Miller and
Ronald Payne, Arrow Books, 1979 (in paperback), Hodder and Stoughton ,
hard cover.
> Are there any books or other sources of information on this
>historic maritime disaster? When did the last survivors die, were
>any ever interviewed?
--------------------------------
Dan Bjarnason
National TV News / Canadian Broadcasting Corp
Toronto, Canada
Mensch Meyer
>See "The Cruelest Night," by Christopher Dobson, John Miller and
>Ronald Payne, Arrow Books, 1979 (in paperback), Hodder and Stoughton ,
>hard cover.
In this context and of similar tragedy of the sinking of the SS Willhelm
Gustloff with its 8000 (mostly civilian) passengers during the last days
of WWII is that a few days later, on February 10, 1945, the same Soviet
submarine sank the German hospital ship, the General von Steuben, and
3,500 wounded soldiers aboard the ship, who were being evacuated from
East Prussia, drowned. To the Soviets, inflamed by hate propaganda
against the Germans, the sign of the Red Cross meant nothing.
On May 6, 1945, the German freighter Goya, also part of the rescue
fleet,
was torpedoed by another Soviet submarine, and more than 6,000
refugees fleeing from East Prussia died.
The lack of knowledge in the United States about any of these
terrible maritime disasters of 1945 is profound, even among people who
consider themselves knowledgeable on naval matters.
I wonder whether Payne's book on the sinking of the SS W. Gustloff
contains mention also of the sinking of the hospital ship Gen. von
Steuben and of the SS Goya, which contained another 6000 East
Prussian refugees.
"War was once cruel and magnificent, but now cruel and squalid"
Winston Churchill
Dirk Lorek
wrote:
>the Wilhelm Gustloff
>went down with the loss of more than 7,000 lives.
This figure is contested. It could very well have been the 'Goya'
(torpedoed in the Baltic on 16/17 Apr 45) which had the largest
deathtoll: around 6 700. I've seen figures for the 'Gustloff' stating
that she carried around 6 600 people, of which 564 were rescued.
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
Bobby Davidson
brutality of the Soviet Navy, I feel that I should point
out that the US sumarine fleet in the Pacific was
ordered to carry out a sink-on-sight policy against
Japanese shipping, which incidentally led to the deaths
of many US POWs. It may be that the role of submarine
warfare by the US in defeating Japan has not been
properly recognised. Also British submarines adopted
a sink-on-sight policy against German shipping in the
Skagerrak and the Kattegat. The sinking of the Titanic
remains the 2nd worst peacetime disaster, but even in
Britain not many have heard of the worst disaster
involving a British vessel, the Lancastria which was
sunk by the Germans while evacuating St. Nazaire in
1940 with 4000 dead.
John Sauvageau
TTV...@prodigy.com (Mensch Meyer) wrote:
> Are there any books or other sources of information on this
> historic maritime disaster? When did the last survivors die, were
> any ever interviewed?
>
There are many survivors still living. I have personally contacted many
of them and some of their testimonials will be found at the address
below.
You will find the most extensive coverage on the Gustloff at the
following URL address:
http://www.compunews.com/~jsav/gus/pending.htm
This site also includes a wealth of data on Capt Marinesko and submarine
S-13. There is also much information on the Goya, Steuben etc... Be
prepared to spend some time.
Regards,
John Sauvageau
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
casita
>historic maritime disaster?
The Lancastria was another bad one.
See this website for both and many more.
http://www.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime.html
"No flowers bloom over a sailors grave."
John Sauvageau
> > Are there any books or other sources of information on this
> >any ever interviewed?
>
> Dan Bjarnason
> National TV News / Canadian Broadcasting Corp
You will find answers to all your queries on the Gustloff at the
following site:
http://www.compunews.com/~jsav/gus/pending.htm
It includes several photos and testimonials from survivors. Also has a
wealth of data on the submarine S-13 and her Captain.
--
Visit 'The Omega Connection' Best-kept secret on
the Net
Suitable for Family Viewing
Constantly updated
Mensch Meyer
>You will find answers to all your queries on the Gustloff at the
>following site:
>http://www.compunews.com/~jsav/gus/pending.htm
Thank you for your information. It is gratifying that there are
inquiries and discussions about these tragic events where
people became innocent victims of war based on their ethnicity
and because these events of WWII have been literally blacked
out by "historians..."
Phillip McGregor (Space Opera (FGU), Rigger Black Book (FASA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
asp...@curie.dialix.oz.au | www.fandom.net/~PGD/index.htm | mcgr...@locs.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES! StaRPlay:Armageddon and Dark Star are now available from www.hyperbooks.com
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: inquiries and discussions about these tragic events where
: people became innocent victims of war based on their ethnicity
: and because these events of WWII have been literally blacked
: out by "historians..."
Before "Gustloff" there were more than 10 million of civilians
murdered, mostly by Germans. The war was started (among others)
because of ethnical reasons. The division between masters
and slaves (Untermenschen) was the kern of the state ideology.
There were almost no protests. German state worked almost
perfectly till the beginning of 1945. When the time came to pay
for crimes everyone was innocent. Only Hitler was guilty.
"Gustloff" is mentioned probably in every standard book.
It is mentioned in Davies' history of Poland, Oxford 1981.
A mystery, probably only for Mensch Meyer.
The war was over in Januar 1945. But Germans continued
to murder and transport in terrible conditions,
forced to walk hundreds of thousands of prisoners.
Many prisoners died on prison ships, e.g. "Arkona".
Why did Germans put people on prison ships?
To organise a cruise around the Baltic see?
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Peter Haase
consisting mostly of women and children is a monstrosity that cannot be
rationalized or justfied by any civilized person. It does not matter who
the perpetrators where - whether they were victors or part of the
vanquished. That goes for the Millions of Russian and Polish civilians
who vanquished under Stalin and Hitler as well as for the 2.8 Million
Germans who where killed by the Bolshevics and Communist Slavs or the 12
Million who where "ethnically cleansed" by them from their ancient home
lands. It goes equally for the Milosevics of today.
Those who would like to make an exception on the guilt of those who
'only' murdered Germans are perhaps unwittingly becoming little Stalins
and Hitlers themselves because both of them thought nothing of 'taking
out' entire ethnic groups on the pure idea that guilt by association is
enough for committing genocide.
Btw, nobody has as yet accused all of the Russian people (thank God!) of
"collective guilt" for the tens of Millions murdered by Stalin. However,
it seems that ALL GERMANS (including their women and children) are the
the only people on the face of this earth who can be raped and murdered
with impunity and even justification according to some so called
'civilized' people. Even though at the hour of greatest hatred against
Germans after WW II, the idea of a collective guilt for atrocities on the
part of the entire German nation as such was found to be groundless at
the trials at Nuremberg. It is one of the reasons why these huge
atrocities committed against Germans are kept so much a secret to this
day.
Monte Koppe
>In soc.history.war.world-war-ii Mensch Meyer wrote:
>>: inquiries and discussions about these tragic events where
>>: people became innocent victims of war based on their ethnicity
>Before "Gustloff" there were more than 10 million of civilians
>murdered, mostly by Germans. The war was started (among others)
>because of ethnical reasons.
My my - what hostility/ emotions. Why is it not possible to discuss
facts and not PERSONAL REACTIONS to facts?
Your statement that "Before "Gustloff" there were more than 10 million
of civilians murdered, mostly by Germans " is part of the Nazi legacy, but
why would you make the victims of the Gustloff responsible for the Nazi
crimes? Yet your statement evokes the reality that equally communism
killed tens of millions of people LONG BEFORE the Gustloff,
LONG BEFORE Hitler's infamy and -- LONG BEFORE Roosevelt's alliance
with Stalin, whose reign killed eventually nearly 62 million, a mass
murder on a scale Hitler himself would never match. These are public
record and certified by Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of
Hawaii, who is a specialist in the study of "democide" (his term for
government mass murder) .
Long BEFORE the Gustloff and 1933 the Bolsheviks' record was already
so bloody that anyone who had provided as much aid and comfort to Hitler
as Roosevelt gave Stalin would now be in total disgrace.
>The war was over in Januar 1945. But Germans continued
> to murder and transport in terrible conditions,
> forced to walk hundreds of thousands of prisoners.
I don't know how you could substantiate such a claim - it is
fascinating rhetoric but you need to cite sources that AFTER 1945 " Germans
(actually)
>continued to murder and transport in terrible conditions, forced
>to walk hundreds of thousands of prisoners.
Whereas it is public record and the world is well aware of Stalin's
gulag systems, the forced labor camps that continued without interruption
AFTER 1945, indeed that's when the Soviets really begann to fill up those
notorious camps in Siberia with helpless victims AFTER being handed all
of Eastern Europe by their Western Allies following WW II.
Perhaps I don't understand your comment and I need to learn, but in my
view you really should elaborate on your sources when you state that:
Peter Haase
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: Your statement that "Before "Gustloff" there were more than 10 million
: of civilians murdered, mostly by Germans " is part of the Nazi legacy, but
: why would you make the victims of the Gustloff responsible for the Nazi
: crimes?
The fact was that German sufferings were part of the
world (dis)order started in September 1939. The social reality
in Eastern Europe,, e.g. the level of criminality and education,
hatred to occupants, the level of life, housing problems,
were defined by the policy of German government. Now someone
makes a 'cut' like in the movie and says - see, what
an extraordinary crime/tragedy. Not extraordinary.
Such was the life in Central Europe. Germans taught
Poles using public executions in the streets,
beating people, dehumanizing Jews. The pattern "X is a louse"
was preperad, the mob only assigned X=German.
Germans exterminated mostly educated people
producing the mob of slaves and later complained
that the mob didn't like to discuss the values of German
poetry. Someone has written about
'civilised people'. Hungry prisoners weren't
civilised people, neither Polish nor German ones.
Millions of Germans lived with Poles on annexed
territories and in GG. When some Poles
prepared a book about good Germans
during WWII they had hard job to find
someone. One of the reason was that
German minoority reacted on pre-war
discriminations, the other - that
mostly German scum migrated to Poland.
I have just read "The Illusion" by Juergen Thorwald.
Some Germans warned that the revange of Slavic nations
will be terrible. And it was terrible. So it was predictable.
:Yet your statement evokes the reality that equally communism
: killed tens of millions of people LONG BEFORE the Gustloff,
Germany cooperated with the Soviets 1939-1941.
Sorry if I wasn't precise in my previous posting - I meant
that Germans transported prisoners after the January 1945
Soviet offensive, when the fail
of the III Reich was obvious. Some of the prisoners were
put on ships and died like Germans on SS Gustloff.
Prisoners of Auschwitz and other camps
were transported or had to walk.
It was at the same time when German civilians died.
Instead to save German civilians Nazis evacuated
prisoners. Like the Soviets in 1941.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Mark Van Alstine
> Mass murder and mass rape of innocent and defenseless civilians
> consisting mostly of women and children is a monstrosity that cannot be
> rationalized or justfied by any civilized person....
Indeed. That is why, for example, Holocaust is so horrible. All those
defensless men, women and children shot by the Nazis in cold blood at Babi
Yar and elsewhere:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/poland/kiev
http://www.ushmm.org/uia-bin/uia_doc/query/8?hf=main&uf=uia_pTWVSM
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/gallery/pg05/pg2/pg05294.html
http://www.ushmm.org/uia-bin/uia_doc/query/11?hf=main&uf=uia_pTWVSM
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/ukraine/byelaya-tserkov/massacre-of-children
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/ukraine/chortkiv/commission-report.440621-28
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/poland/images/mass-execution-01.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/ukraine/images/khmelnitski-proskurov-grave.jpg
Or all those defensless men, women and children gassed to death in cold
blood by the Nazis at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Madjanek, Sobibor and
Treblinka:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/chelmno
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/maidanek
It makes one's blood run cold to realize that a civilized people such as
the Germans, under the thrall of Nazism, could do such a terrible thing
with such callous abandon and self-justification.
[snip]
Mark
--
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and
evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between
political parties--but right through every human heart--and all
human hearts." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
E.F.Schelby
>In article <7k7a72$3...@dgs.dgsys.com>, XWE...@prodigy.com (Peter Haase) wrote:>
>> Mass murder and mass rape of innocent and defenseless civilians
>> consisting mostly of women and children is a monstrosity that cannot be
>> rationalized or justfied by any civilized person....
I agree.
>Indeed. That is why, for example, Holocaust is so horrible. All those
>defensless men, women and children shot by the Nazis in cold blood at Babi
>Yar and elsewhere:
We KNOW that the holocaust was horrible, Mr. Van Alstine. In fact, I
have heard this throughout my lifetime. I can't tell you how often.
I lost count. No one will forget the holocaust, I assure you. The
public awareness campaigns of the last fifty years have seen to
that, and they continue. So it is quite unnecessary for you to
devalue the suffering of other human beings.
In contrast,most people haven't heard anything about the fate of
millions of Germans. It is history that has been largely invisible,
at least in public life. So kindly let Peter Haase make his
statement without holding the holocaust up like a sledge hammer
about to fall on his head. No one is entitled to silence the history
of others. That's a method of oppression, and it will not succeed.
I will close with a quote from Helke Sander regarding her pioneering
work and documentary film (Liberators Take Liberties, 1992) on the
mass rapes. Not that it matters, but this courageous historian is
German and Jewish:
"There are thousands of films and books dealing with the
Nazi politics of genocide. For this film, I wanted knowledge
of events no work had previously addressed. Had historians
ever worked on the subject I would surely not have made this
film. From the questions that the material solicits many
more films and books could be written. I do not claim to
have said everything on the subject. I did not want further
talk of rumors. but facts. Now I have them." (From
_October,_ Spring 1995, p.83. MIT Press).
Thousands to none. It is most peculiar.
Regards,
ES
Jukka O. Kauppinen
What's wrong with you people?
You turn a maritime disaster to political crap. Nazi regime eeeevil
eeeeevil big baaad. Yes, but that was not the subject, was it?
jok
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
Journalist Mail: Jukka O. Kauppinen, MikroBitti,
MikroBitti Kornetintie 8, 00380 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Tel/fax +358-17-824 225 or fax +358-9-120 5747
GSM +358-40-730 0036
http://mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia
http://www.mikrobitti.fi/info (english information)
http://www.mikrobitti.fi/
Mark Van Alstine
(E.F.Schelby) wrote:
> mvana...@home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> >In article <7k7a72$3...@dgs.dgsys.com>, XWE...@prodigy.com (Peter Haase) wrote:>
> >Indeed. That is why, for example, Holocaust is so horrible. All those
> >defensless men, women and children shot by the Nazis in cold blood at Babi
> >Yar and elsewhere:
> We KNOW that the holocaust was horrible, Mr. Van Alstine. In fact, I
> have heard this throughout my lifetime. I can't tell you how often.
> I lost count. No one will forget the holocaust, I assure you. The
> public awareness campaigns of the last fifty years have seen to
> that, and they continue.
In reality most people, certainly most people in the U.S., know very
little about the Holocaust beyond the fact that the Nazis killed six
million Jews.
> So it is quite unnecessary for you to
> devalue the suffering of other human beings.
How have I devalued the "suffering of other human beings? I'm not the one
using tragdedies like the sinking of the Gusloff etc. as stalking horses
for Nazi apologia.
> In contrast,most people haven't heard anything about the fate of
> millions of Germans.
The sinking of the Gustloff was but one tragdedy amongst thousands during
WWII. To expect that some fifty years later that "most people" would know-
or even care -about the sinking of the Gustloff is a rather unrealistic
expectation, IMHO. Tragdedies like the Gustloff, Beneres, and
Indianannoplis, are, for the most part, only known to historians, history
buffs, and the surviors and their relatives.
> It is history that has been largely invisible,
> at least in public life. So kindly let Peter Haase make his
> statement without holding the holocaust up like a sledge hammer
> about to fall on his head.
Then please be kind enough- and honest enough -to tell Mr. Haase et. al to
stop using the tradgedy of the Gustloff for his "political crap."
> No one is entitled to silence the history
> of others.
Then why are you trying to? Pot.Kettle.Black.
> That's a method of oppression, and it will not succeed.
I agree.
> I will close with a quote from Helke Sander regarding her pioneering
> work and documentary film (Liberators Take Liberties, 1992) on the
> mass rapes. Not that it matters, but this courageous historian is
> German and Jewish:
Is being a German Jew who says something that appeals to you supposed to
be taklen as some kind of stamp of approval? (After all, the Holocaust
denier David Cole is Jewish, yet he denied that there were homicidal gas
chambers at Auschwitz.) The simple fact is that there are numerous
Germans, both Jewish and gentile, who were imprisoned in Nazi KLs and who
became historians. The merit of a historian is not whether she is
"courageous" in your eyes- or Jewish or German or a was imprisoned in a KL
or not -but whether or not he is a _good historian_ who can objectively
marshal the evidence to support his account of historical events.
> "There are thousands of films and books dealing with the
> Nazi politics of genocide. For this film, I wanted knowledge
> of events no work had previously addressed. Had historians
> ever worked on the subject I would surely not have made this
> film.
Right there Sanders is mistaken. The mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from
Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe is well-known to historians. To suggest
otherwise is, at best, misleading. To imply that no historian "ever worked
on the subject" is a fabrication. In Sanders's case it is a
self-aggrandizing fabrication.
> From the questions that the material solicits many
> more films and books could be written. I do not claim to
> have said everything on the subject. I did not want further
> talk of rumors. but facts. Now I have them." (From
> _October,_ Spring 1995, p.83. MIT Press).
>
> Thousands to none.
Thousand to none of what? Books on the the expulsion of ethnic Germans
from Soviet-occopied Eastern Europe? Are you _seriously_ claiming that
there is not _one_ book on the expulsion of ethnic Germans from
Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe? Or is that just empty rhetoric on your
part?
> It is most peculiar.
Yes, your claims do seem most peculiar.
casita
>bombers?
Dresden was was tactical bombing in support of the Red Army breakthrough.
Gen Geo Marshall publicly asserted it was attacked at the request of the
Russians.
It also showed the Reds what Bomber Command and the Mighty 8th could do.
Mark Van Alstine
<jukka.k...@mikrobitti.fi> wrote:
> What's wrong with you people?
>
> You turn a maritime disaster...
A maritime disaster? The sinking of the Gustloff and the resulting loss of
life was the direct result of military action.
> to political crap....
Yes, using the sinking of the Gustloff as a stalking horse for Nazi
apologia is indeed "political crap."
> Nazi regime eeeevil eeeeevil big baaad. Yes, but that was not the subject,
> was it?
No, the origional "subject," or rather the origional intent, was using the
sinking of the Gustloff as a stalking horse for Nazi apologia for
"political crap."
casita
>not only Polish) airmen started bombing German strategic targets into
>submission.
Men like Flt Sgt Stanley John Kozlowski, Navigator, RCAF
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/missile/423/mccollom.html
And Andrew Charles Mynarski, Air Gunner, RCAF.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/historical/secondwar/citations/mynarski.htm
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: And your citing numbers of websites on the Holocaust does not relate
: with the subject of "The sinking of the SS Wilhelm Gustloff. " Your
There is an opinion that the Holocaust and other German crimes
caused the tragedy of German civilians. Your opinion
is that these two problems aren't connected. You view
isn't ovious.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Dirk Lorek
>Dresden was was tactical bombing in support of the Red Army breakthrough.
>Gen Geo Marshall publicly asserted it was attacked at the request of the
>Russians.
Marshall was wrong.
At Yalta, Marshal Stalin asked Army General Antonov, Deputy Chief of
the Russian General Staff, to outline to the Conference the situation
existing on the Eastern Front and to describe Russia's plans for
subsequent operations. At the conclusion of his extended presentation,
General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to
the Russians:
"Our wishes are:
a. To speed up the advance of the Allied troops on the Western Front,
for which the present situation is very favorable: (1) To defeat the
Germans on the Eastern Front. (2) To defeat the German groupings which
have advanced into the Ardennes. (3) The weakening of the German
forces in the West in connection with the shifting of their reserves
to the East (It is desirable to begin the advance during the first
half of February).
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out
the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from
Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of
Berlin and Leipzig).
c. Not permit the enemy to remove his forces from Italy."
ARGONAUT Conference Minutes of the Plenary Meeting between the U.S.A.,
Great Britain, and the U.S.S.R., held in Livadia Palace, Yalta, on
Sunday, 4 February 1945, at 1700. Supporting Document No. 12.
You see, 'in particular' Berlin and Leipzig are mentioned, but no word
about Dresden.
OTOH, there exists a detailed PM about the Dresden (Thunderclap)
operation from 1944, and this PM was written half a year before Yalta:
TOP SECRET. OPERATION 'THUNDERCLAP'
(Attack on German Civilian Morale)
Introduction
7. The following principles are put forward as essential to the
achievement of the maximum moral effect upon a civilian population:-
(i) The attack must be delivered in such density that it imposes as
nearly as possible a 100% risk of death to the individual in the area
to which it is applied.
(ii) ... the total weight of the attack must be such as to produce an
effect amounting to a national disaster.
(iii) The target chosen should be one involving the maximum
associations, both traditional and personal, for the whole population.
(iv) The area selected should embrace the highest density of
population.
(v) Attacks of this nature are likely to have maximum effect when the
population has become convinced that its Government is powerless to
prevent a repetition. ...
15. Total devastation ... would, moreover, offer incontrovertible
proof of a modern bomber force; it would convince our Russian allies
... of the effectiveness of Anglo-American air power.
http://www.pro.gov.uk/education/teachers/churchill/invest4.htm
This PM corresponds with the raid as it was carried out: the city
center with the densest population was targeted by the RAF, not the
marshaling yard just outside the city which would have been the most
obvious target if transportation, and thus support for the Soviets,
was the intended goal of the raid.
Monte Koppe
>Or all those defensless men, women and children gassed to death in cold
>blood by the Nazis at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Madjanek, Sobibor and
>Treblinka:
And your citing numbers of websites on the Holocaust does not relate
with the subject of "The sinking of the SS Wilhelm Gustloff. " Your
contribution only glorified hatred to justify tragedy.
"There is no greater hatred in the whole world than the hatred of
ignorance for knowledge. "
Galileo
Galilei
Angus M McLellan
wrote:
>mvana...@home.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>>Or all those defensless men, women and children gassed to death in cold
>>blood by the Nazis at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Madjanek, Sobibor and
>>Treblinka:
>
>And your citing numbers of websites on the Holocaust does not relate
>with the subject of "The sinking of the SS Wilhelm Gustloff. " Your
>contribution only glorified hatred to justify tragedy.
Aren't you the same "Monte Koppe" who wrote :-
Message-id <375c7cbc...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>
>To the Soviets, inflamed by hate propaganda against the Germans,
>the sign of the Red Cross meant nothing.
That seems to be justifying hatred to glorify tragedy.
The fact of the matter is that submarines sank hospital ships. Red
Cross flags and emblems which seem obvious to those above water no
doubt look a great deal less obvious through a periscope on a dark
night. Add to this that submarine captains ought to be aggressive and
accidents are inevitable. To believe otherwise would require double
standards or accepting that German submariners in WW1 were "inflamed
by hate propaganda", since U-boats sank several hospital ships.
A reasonable summary of the sinking of the Gustloff is that it was a
tragedy, but a perfectly proper act of war by the Soviet Navy in line
with the behaviour of all navies in WW2.
Angus
casita
> Norwegian and Polish pilots are described as
>"gallant heros"
They were.
and the Luftwaffe are labeled "murderers."
They were not. They were brave men doing their duty.
But, they fought for the Nazism shooting down Allied bombers. Thereby,
prolonging the war. And the war wasn't going to end until Germany and Japan
were beaten to their knees.
>Any
>rebuttal to the "whipping up of Hun hate"
On bomber squadrons, that seems to have been very
much the exception to the rule. But, crews had to be made to understand
that getting their bombs onto target was vitally important. If they didn't,
they would have to keep going back.
>is being censored and
>notes returned to the author as "rejected."
They kill a lot of mine too.
It's the price of freedon of speech.
Nils K Hammer
the claims are true, that the ship was well marked and lit as
a rescue ship. We have had this sort of discussion here before.
I will remind posters that when they give approval (or what can
easily be interpreted as approval) for the mass murder of
civilians on the Gustloff, students in the future will have a
hard time separating this from the mass murder of other civilians.
I on the other hand do not approve of any mass murder of civilians.
Nils K. Hammer
Dirk Lorek
>>From the kind of discussion going on here, I will assume that
>the claims are true, that the ship was well marked and lit as
>a rescue ship. We have had this sort of discussion here before.
She had been used as a hospital ship, but was now painted in all gray
as she was in use as an apartment ship for Uboat crews, belonging
officially to the 2nd Uboat Lehr Division (ULD). She was equipped with
two quadruple flak guns. Another former liner of the 2nd ULD, the
Hansa, carrying 5000 passengers, was also part of the formation. The
official passenger list for the Gustloff was:
918 military personnel of the 2nd ULD
173 civilian crews
373 female Navy personnel
162 wounded Wehrmacht personnel
4424 refugees
1 dog
While the Gustloff and Hansa were in the process to leave, an
additional number of refugees was taken on board the Gustloff,
transferred from a smaller vessel. These people were not counted, it
is estimated that they numbered between 300 - 600. The Gustloff was
now totally overcrowded, she had been built for 1 400 passengers but
was now carrying around 6 500 people.
It had been intended to provide a stronger anti-submarine escort for
these two ships, but the commander of the 2nd ULD decided not to wait
for them and risk the journey with two of his own smaller corvettes,
because so far none of the evacuation ships had been attacked by
Soviet submarines and the weather was quite bad with poor visibility
(1 - 3 nm). But because of the heavy sea, his corvettes had soon to be
released from the convoy, but two other escorts arrived, the T-Boat
Loewe and the corvette TF1. The TF1 did not make it in the weather
either, leaving the Loewe as the sole escort. Then the Hansa had an
engine and rudder breakdown and the convoy stopped. The Gustloff's
commander radioed the higher Uboat command, asking if he should
return, but he was ordered to carry on together with Loewe.
Both vessels traveled totally black-outed, but then the commander of
the Gustloff received a message that a German mine-sweeping formation
was crossing his path, and he turned on the position lights (but
nothing else) in order to avoid a collision. Meanwhile the command of
the naval 9th escort division sent a submarine warning to all its
escorts in the vicinity, but Loewe was not part of the 9th and did
listen on another frequency. In addition, the Loewe's sonar had now
broken down owing to severe icing.
The Soviet submarine S-13 was in the vicinity when the Gustloff turned
on its position lights and the crew detected the large vessel despite
the darkness and the snow storm. The Gustloff was thought being a
troop transporter. Three torpedoes were fired at 21:16 local time. The
air temperature was -18 degrees C, the water temperature about 2
degrees C. In the moment the Gustloff sank, all lights turned on by
some mysterious reason and she went down fully enlightened. The Loewe
took 472 people on board. Later more ships arrived, the T-Boats T 36
and TS II rescued 662, the cargo ships Goettingen and Gotland 37, and
the corvettes M 341 and 1703 38. All in all 1 209 people were rescued
out of 6 500, a deathtoll of around 5 300 people.
As I wrote in another post, the Gustloff was not the largest maritime
disaster in history, but probably the largest one if civilian deaths
are considered. The Goya was torpedoed by the Soviet submarine L-3 on
16/17 Apr 45. Of 7 000 people (mostly wounded Wehrmacht personnel),
only 334 survived, a deathtoll of about 6 600.
>I will remind posters that when they give approval (or what can
>easily be interpreted as approval) for the mass murder of
>civilians on the Gustloff, students in the future will have a
>hard time separating this from the mass murder of other civilians.
>
>I on the other hand do not approve of any mass murder of civilians.
Nor do I (which is well-known I hope). The Gustloff was a disaster and
a very large tragedy, but I can't see that it was a deliberate attempt
to kill civilians. Troop transporters were legitimate targets for
Uboats and the Soviet submarine were given no indications that the
Gustloff wasn't one (and in fact, she was one, partially).
Source: Heinz Schön, Ostsee '45
casita
>fight Germany, there was the Royal Navy,
What is the Royal Navy going to do?
Blockade Germany, so they can starve to death?
Coastal Command, Fighter
>Command, the Commandos,
Commandos?
If Commandos did a tiny % of what Bomber Command could do the books and
movies would be pouring out!
Fighters are for defence. The best defence is a strong offence. Fighters
don't bring the enemy to their knees.
> and the Army in the Balkans, North Africa and
>later, in Italy.
Heroic men. But, they were sideshows. The point of strategic warfare is
to put pressure on the enemies capital and major cities. Aerial bombardment
was just the 20th Century method.
>One could have built fewer heavier bombers and more
>fighters, or more close-support aircraft, or more Mosquitoes,
How much wood? How many carpenters? How many pilots would have to be
trained?
"I would say this to those who placed that shining sword on our
hands--Without your genius and efforts we would not have prevailed, for I
believe the Lancaster was the greatest single factor in winning the war."
Sir Arthur Harris.
>r more
>ASW aircraft for example. All these were 'viable options'.
What is ASW? Air-Sea-War?
Stooging around around the ocean looking for needles in a haystack?
Destroy the very factories the ships and submarines were built in.
>Darmstadt, Heilbronn, Pforzheim, Dresden, Potsdam, Wuerzburg,
>Paderborn, Hildesheim, Dueren. ISTR that 2/3 of all German civilian
>air raid casualties during the war occurred in this period.
Berlin, Feb 1945, topped every one of them except Dresden.
And the RAF was no where near Berlin in this period.
>But Bomber Command's lack of accuracy was gone by then thanks
>to the Pathfinders, better photo reconnaissance, and technical
>developments like new markers and electronic navigation- and blind
>bombing aids.
It was much improved. But, if it was so perfect, why did the RAF have to
make 3 trips to Revigny, France before it was considered safe to bomb?
That was mid-July, 1944.
>And despite 2 years of area bombing it was still not
>proven that city bombing was the most effective way to harm the German
>war machine.
Only a % was area-bombing.
The US tried precision bombing on Japan. It was a failure.
They went with night area bombing as more effective.
This, as you know, was 1945.
>Like in Britain during the Blitz, the German war industry
>and the morale of the population had shown no signs of breaking down.
Between the Gestapo, the Reds, fear of a Morgenthau type plan and the
Allied demand for Unconditional Surrender, the German people ran into a
psychological barrier. For better or worse, they were wedded to Hitler.
The workers and soldiers just wanted the war to end. Morale sufferred
terribly.
The Brits definitely would have cracked, but they were never in the
desperate situation of Germany.
>But area bombing
>continued nevertheless on an unprecedented scale up to March 1945.
You must include the USAAF.
They were politically correct, but it came down to the same thing.
In Germany, and Japan.
>Thus area bombing was the prime method of RAF attack in 44/45 not
>because it was the only 'viable option' but because influential people
>in the RAF leadership (i e Harris and Churchill) had made a deliberate
>choice to target civilians.
So did the USAAF, therefore you must accuse the entire Allied High Command.
Why was Harris not fired? Why did they refuse to accept his resignation?
>Army support could have
>been perfected.
It was.
>German airfields could have been bombed and more mines
>could have been dropped along the German coastline.
They were.
>Even the use of anthrax and
>poison gas was considered:
After, the V rockets started.
WSC figured if it could shorten the war by one year, it was worth
considering.
I think it was also an option for Japan.
>Would you consider that
>being a legitimate way of warfare then?
The nukes were no treat either, but they would have used them on Germany.
>and the moral issue is not only that it took the devil
>as example
War is immoral. Ending it is morally justified.
>but also that this conduct prolonged the war, resulting in
>more Holocaust victims and the loss of lives of Allied soldiers.
BS
The 1944 invasion was a great success.
>The
>moral question is if these victims could have been saved if it was not
>for the negligence of Arthur T. Harris and Churchill.
The Germans gassed the Jews, and the Germans mowed down the soldiers trying
to liberate them.
Harris was the most brilliant commander of this century.
3 000 000 German soldiers surrendered meekly to the West in the first four
months of 1945.
WSC was a great wartime leader.
Eisenhower and Montgomery had the HIGHEST regard for Bomber Command.
The Candian Jewish Congress went to bat for RCAF bomber men in Buchenwald.
>I do not agree. If one considers the bombing of one's own population
>illegitimate, bombing the aggressor's population is illegitimate too.
Maybe so, but it works.
>One does not fight a war against barbarism by using barbarism.
Who ever said that?
Moderation in war is imbecility.
>How many innocent old people, children and
>dissenters like social democrat workers are you willing to sacrifice
They could be evacuated.
Or, war production could be halted.
A workers politics are not important.
The soldiers were not volunteers.
>in order to punish the few that could be hold responsible for
>atrocities?
There is absolutely NO evidence, none whatsoever, that Air Marshall Harris
had any animosity at all for the German people. And, few of his men did.
He said he only felt a surge for revenge once, during the Blitz.
He felt his way was the way to win the war. He was on record saying that
Speer should not have gone to jail. That is pretty generous by any
standard.
The Russians punished the Germans.
Maybe many Allied leaders wanted revenge.
But, not Harris, nor the majority of his men.
>The civilians that died
>by RAF city raids did not die accidently, they were the *primary*
>target. Their killing *was* premeditated.
The Americans area bombed too.
Simply put, area bombing means destruction of an area. Killing workers was
considered like killing soldiers.
Anyone in that area is at risk. Harris went on the media to explain that
Rostock and Lubeck were mere "summer zephyrs" compared to the "hurricane"
soon to follow.
Trueman warned the Japs ( sorry, Japanese ), of a rain of ruin, _after_ H
and N.
>while subsequent attacks on the same city were usually directed
>against the center of the most heavily built-up areas which remained
>undestroyed."
>United States Strategic Bombing Survey
>Area Studies Division Report, pg 4
"On Feb 3, 1945 he sent nearly 1 000 bombers against Berlin.
The raid was directed against railyards and other transportation targets,
but many of the bombs fell on government buildings at the centre of the
city. Later Spaatz admitted that his Fortresses had bombed indescriminately
'making no effort to confine ourselves to military targets'.
Perhaps 25 000 Berliners died in that raid.
Time-Life books.
"I decided on Coventry because there the most targets could be hit withinthe
smallest area."
Goering.
>"The aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German
>workers and the disruption of civilized community life throughout
>Germany.
That was Harris telling the big shots not to con the people.
To either say area bombing was all Bomber Command was capable of, or to
confirm that was their primary mission.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: civilian casualties, not damage to the rail system, seem to have been
: the aim.
I understand that GB and USA were pro-Nazi, they wanted the rail system
to be undamaged...
Jerzy Pankiewicz
Mensch Meyer
>> quoting Bomber Harris, perhaps you have a book about him...
>Sure I do, doesn't every home?
Actually I don't have a book about "Bomber Harris." But I do
have a book about Dresden - and a few others... ;-)
George Hardy
Organization: Club of Anchor Friends
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.90.4
In article
<006901beb9e5$430987e0$b6ad...@cs701688-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>,
"casita" <cas...@home.com> says:
>
>>Marshall was wrong.
>
>Dresden was a weird one.
>My point is that men way above Harris were involved in Thurnderclap.
Bombing in the eastern part of Germany, what became the USSR zone
of occupation, was very spotty. It was done only with the approval
of the USSR. Dresden was done with the approval, if not at the
request, of Stalin. That it was as bad as it was, was the result of
a number of factors, good or bad luck, depending on your point of
view. Certainly it was planned to be as bad as possible. Maximum
civilian casualties, not damage to the rail system, seem to have been
the aim. But, consider 1) bombing was notoriously inaccurate, so the
failure to bomb the rail yards may have been just error and 2) Stalin
and WSC/FDR's aims may have differed. Quite possibly Stalin had
asked for bombing of the rail yards and WSC planned the raid, knowing
that he could say "we missed".
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
casita
>a book about him...
Sure I do, doesn't every home?
>I wonder whether you find in that book that Sir Arthur Harris as
>air Marshall in charge of Strategy
No, the Air Ministry was. Goering answered only to Hitler. And Hitler,
to no one.
Harris answered to many people above him. Finally, to WSC. And WSC had to
answer to the President and Uncle Joe.
Harris did not have the autonomy many assume.
>was the only Englisch
>Air Marschall to not be honored with their highest awards at
>wars end - because even the English could not stand nor justify
>the attack on Dresden.
After the war,
the Battle of Britain men became the RAF PR reps.
Bomber Command lost more men in a single night over Germany than Fighter
Command lost in the B of B.
Gen Marshall, US Army, asserted publicly, that Dresden was bombed at the
request of Russia.
The USAAF straffed Dresden, and bombed Hell out of Berlin that same month,
and basted and nuked Japan. Jimmy Doolittle got a CMH for it in 1942.
Harris did not care about another medal for himself. He had plenty from
WW1, but went to his grave bitter his "old lags" never got a campaign
medal. I think the world owed them better than that. They went out to do
what they were told had to be done.
E.F.Schelby
>In article <37714b34...@198.59.115.25>, sch...@kitsune.swcp.com
>(E.F.Schelby) wrote:
(snip)
>The sinking of the Gustloff was but one tragdedy amongst thousands during
>WWII. To expect that some fifty years later that "most people" would know-
>or even care -about the sinking of the Gustloff is a rather unrealistic
>expectation,
The topic is as legitimate as all others in the context of WW II.
People care enough to pay so they can watch the sinking of the
Titanic, which demonstrates what publicity does for a subject.
Actually, disasters seem to be quite popular - especially in the
movies.
You see, omission is also propaganda. Example: 0ur local newspaper
treats us to the Knight Ridder Millenium Notebook. It's a series of
full-page Sunday chronologies of our century. I already chuckled
about WW I, and now we have arrived at WW II. The German bombing of
Britain is written up with great bathos. Not a word mentions the
bombings of Japan and Germany, and the civilian casualty figures.
Not a word mentions Hamburg, Dresden, and all the other cities. And
so it goes.....The loser in all this is the American public because
it receives an utterly unrealistic & skewed picture of the world.
[...]
>> It is history that has been largely invisible,
>> at least in public life. So kindly let Peter Haase make his
>> statement without holding the holocaust up like a sledge hammer
>> about to fall on his head.
>
>Then please be kind enough- and honest enough -to tell Mr. Haase et. al to
>stop using the tradgedy of the Gustloff for his "political crap."
I am prepared to be kind enough as well as honest enough - but what
is it you request? Mr.Haase seems to be new to this group. It is
not my habit to spy on people via dejanews before I respond. His
article was well written and well argued. It had nothing offensive
in it. In any case, if you could tell us how, in the life of our
democracies, we could stop using tragedies for 'political crap,' it
would be great good news.
>> No one is entitled to silence the history
>> of others.
>
>Then why are you trying to? Pot.Kettle.Black.
I don't understand you. Who am I that I would want or could silence
anyone's history? I don't believe in silencing. It goes against my
convictions. And to top it off, I don't have any power whatsoever.
The manipulation of history is associated with power.
>> That's a method of oppression, and it will not succeed.
>I agree.
Thank you. Glad to hear that we can agree on one important point.
>
>> I will close with a quote from Helke Sander regarding her pioneering
>> work and documentary film (Liberators Take Liberties, 1992) on the
>> mass rapes. Not that it matters, but this courageous historian is
>> German and Jewish:
>
>Is being a German Jew who says something that appeals to you supposed to
>be taklen as some kind of stamp of approval? (After all, the Holocaust
>denier David Cole is Jewish, yet he denied that there were homicidal gas
>chambers at Auschwitz.)
I you will forgive me, I don't want to be drawn into this type of
discussion.
>The merit of a >historian is not whether she is "courageous" in your eyes- or
>Jewish or German >or a was imprisoned in a KL or not -but whether or not he is a
>_good historian_ >who can objectively marshal the evidence to support his account
>of historical >events.
That sounds like wonderful advice for undergraduates taking a first
history class. But from where I stand it's appropriate to say that
Sander is a good historian in addition to being a courageous one.
She is quite observant in stating that <quote>:
"One can more easily show oneself to be a 'good German'
if one leaves problematic questions alone. One can use this
dilemma [guilt] as a cudgel to impose censorship if one
wants to avoid difficulties." (October, Spring 95, p.85).
>> "There are thousands of films and books dealing with the
>> Nazi politics of genocide. For this film, I wanted knowledge
>> of events no work had previously addressed. Had historians
>> ever worked on the subject I would surely not have made this
>> film.
>
>Right there Sanders is mistaken. The mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from
>Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe is well-known to historians.
No, she is not mistaken. You may have overlooked the fact that
Sander's subject are the mass rapes and NOT the mass expulsions.
Without doubt, she did pioneering work. It's for other historians to
improve upon it if they think they can.
>To suggest otherwise is, at best, misleading. To imply that no historian
>"ever worked >on the subject" is a fabrication. In Sanders's case it is a
>self-aggrandizing fabrication.
Oh, please. You can't even buy the film in the US, so where is the
grandstanding? It is a very unpleasant issue. For this and other
reaons no one else did seven years of archival research on this. No
historian worked seriously and exclusively on the specifics. Naimark
relied on Sander's legwork because no one had bothered to go
systematically beyond dispersed fragments, a bit here and a bit
there, tales, poems, rumors, and personal accounts. No one else
worked through a large amount of sleeping documentation and hard
evidence in the Bundesarchiv. No one else interviewed all over
Germany and in Byelorussia. The people she interviewed had been mute
ever since these crimes happened to them. That is an
incomprehensible injustice. So if you will forgive me, for the
present time and until shown otherwise, I put my chips on Naimark's
support of Sander's research.
(snip)
>> Thousands to none.
>
>Thousand to none of what? Books on the the expulsion of ethnic Germans
>from Soviet-occopied Eastern Europe? Are you _seriously_ claiming that
>there is not _one_ book on the expulsion of ethnic Germans from
>Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe? Or is that just empty rhetoric on your
>part?
Thousand to none on the rapes (serious studies, that is). The
expulsions were _not_ Sander's research topic.
Regards,
ES
If any dying had to be done,the
chore was best left to civilians.
Lewis Lapham in Harper's, July 1999
casita
> Dresden was done with the approval, if not at the
>request, of Stalin. That it was as bad as it was, was the result of
>a number of factors, good or bad luck, depending on your point of
>view. Certainly it was planned to be as bad as possible.
The way I understand Dresden, Stalin requested, WSC gave his whole-hearted
approval. It was to prevent the Germans from moving reinforcements from the
West to face the successful russian advance, and break German morale. The
military situation in Germany was now critical. It was hoped to end the
war. The Americans were asked to come in on it, and agreed. In fact,
they were to have "first go". But, were grounded by bad weather.
The point is, Harris was working under the orders of the Allied Command.
casita
>to be undamaged...
311 American B-17s made the railway yards their aiming point the next day.
It was the RAF night raid which caused the most serious damage at Dresden.
--
soc.culture.japan.moderated Moderator on duty
scj...@eyrie.org
E.F.Schelby
The Gustloff was among the first ships that went down. She sank two
weeks prior to the Yalta Conference, where the topic of moving
Poland westwards at the expense of Germany figured prominently. The
Steuben, a transporter of wounded soldiers (and used, as far as I
know, strictly for that purpose), was sunk on 19 February during the
Yalta meeting. 3500 drowned. The Goya, on the other hand, was sunk
on 16 April 1945 at a time when Russians and Poles were ready to
expell all German civilians from the entire region.
The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia, more or less
trapped, and desperately trying to catch transport). It is
inconceivable that this was unknown to the Russian military
leadership. It was a large rescue operation by sea, and too big to
hide. Doenitz used every vessel he could lay his hands on -
including Merchant Marine vessels and even small private boats. So
why torpedo refugees if one wants to get rid off the German
population anyway?
An estimated 20.000 to 25.000 civilians perished in the Baltic Sea
due to bombardment from the air and by submarines.
Perhaps you have some new information that I am unaware off? Maybe
archival material from Russia? Your comments would be appreciated.
Best regards,
ES
E.F.Schelby
Typo correction of my recent post in response to Dirk Lorek:
The Steuben was sunk on 10 February 1945, not on 19 February.
Best regards,
ES
polo
> >But Bomber Command's lack of accuracy was gone by then thanks
> >to the Pathfinders, better photo reconnaissance, and technical
> >developments like new markers and electronic navigation- and blind
> >bombing aids.
H2S was very effective if the target had features were right:
as in a river, lake, coastline.
>
> It was much improved. But, if it was so perfect, why did the RAF have to
> make 3 trips to Revigny, France before it was considered safe to bomb?
> That was mid-July, 1944.
July 12/13 cloud over target
July 14/15 target could not be identified 7 Lancasters lost.
July 18/19 rail lines to the battle front cut. 24 Lancasters
lost.
>
> >And despite 2 years of area bombing it was still not
> >proven that city bombing was the most effective way to harm the German
> >war machine.
Albert Speer told Hitler that if more cities were bombed
as Hamburg had been the people would demand a stop to the war.
>
> Only a % was area-bombing.
> The US tried precision bombing on Japan. It was a failure.
> They went with night area bombing as more effective.
I do not understand the American definition of
"precision bombing". Hundreds of aircraft flying at about
the same altitude covering hundreds of acres horizontally
with all the bombs being dropped at the same second
is hardly "precision bombing" The target [or non target]
would have to cover an area on the ground identical to the area
covered by the bombers.
>
>
> >Like in Britain during the Blitz, the German war industry
> >and the morale of the population had shown no signs of breaking down.
The fact that the Germans could "take it" also never
entered the British mind. As Speer said that if more cities
were bombed like Hamburg had been the people would have
demanded a stop to the war.
>
> Between the Gestapo, the Reds, fear of a Morgenthau type plan
> and
> the Allied demand for Unconditional Surrender,
I read an account of the meeting of Churchill and Roosevelt
at which Roosevelt made the statement of
"unconditional surrender" and that some people believe that
Roosevelt just said it but did not mean it. It was just a casual throw
away remark.
I hope that some one could tell us any source of this remark.
>
> You must include the USAAF.
> They were politically correct, but it came down to the same thing.
> In Germany, and Japan.
>
> >Thus area bombing was the prime method of RAF attack in 44/45 not
> >because it was the only 'viable option' but because influential people
> >in the RAF leadership (i e Harris and Churchill) had made a deliberate
> >choice to target civilians.
On February 14, 1942 The Air Ministry sent the "area bombing"
directive to Bomber Command"
"It has been decided that the primary objective of your
operations should now be focussed on the morale of the
enemy civilian population and in particular of the
industrial workers.
Official History, Vol.IV, p. 144.
Portal wrote to Air Vice Marshall Bottomley who had drafted
the directive to Bomber Command:
Ref the new bombing directive: I suppose that it is clear
that the aiming points are to be the built-up areas, 'not'
for instance the dockyards or aircraft factories where
these are mentioned in Appendix A
This must be made quite clear if it not already understood.
Official History, Vol. I, p. 324.
>
> So did the USAAF, therefore you must accuse the entire Allied High Command.
> Why was Harris not fired? Why did they refuse to accept his resignation?
Spaatz, I think it was, also went his own way in selecting targets.
>
> >German airfields could have been bombed and more mines
> >could have been dropped along the German coastline.
Albert Speer also lamented the losses of water born shipping
to mines that were dropped into the Rhine, and major canals.
Dortmund Ems canal for example which claimed many bomber
command lives.
>
> >The
> >moral question is if these victims could have been saved if it was not
> >for the negligence of Arthur T. Harris and Churchill.
Negligence????
casita
"Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable, unless they
are strategically justified."
Sir Arthur Harris
Dirk Lorek
>DiL...@pobox.com (Dirk Lorek) wrote:
>
>>Nils K Hammer <nh...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>>>I on the other hand do not approve of any mass murder of civilians.
>>
>>Nor do I (which is well-known I hope). The Gustloff was a disaster and
>>a very large tragedy, but I can't see that it was a deliberate attempt
>>to kill civilians. Troop transporters were legitimate targets for
>>Uboats and the Soviet submarine were given no indications that the
>>Gustloff wasn't one (and in fact, she was one, partially).
[snip]
>Perhaps you have some new information that I am unaware off? Maybe
>archival material from Russia? Your comments would be appreciated.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this request. I was describing the
circumstances during which the Gustloff was sunk. According to the
source I gave, the Gustloff cannot be described as a civilian rescue
ship, it was painted in military gray, was armed with two guns, and
traveled escorted in darkness. To any submarine commander (including
German ones), this was a valid target as far as I can tell.
I can't tell to what extent the Soviets were aware of the civilian
evacuation by sea. My understanding is that they at least were aware
of the evacuation of military personnel that occurred by the same
means. It seems the latter was not insignificant and although I have
no ratio I would _guess_ from my readings that at least about half of
the evacuees were Wehrmacht personnel (many wounded). In the largest
disaster, the sinking of the Goya for instance, almost all victims
were military personnel. Also the von Steuben carried large number of
wounded Wehrmacht soldiers during her journeys, on the first trip it
were 2537 wounded and 100 refugees, on the second trip 3 070 wounded
and 372 refugees. I have no numbers for her last trip, but my source
says that the wounded were taken on board first, and only when all
were on board, the refugees were allowed to enter. The only ship sunk
with a larger number of civilian casualties than military casualties
seems to be the Gustloff. I have the highest respect for all the
victims, but given the significant part of military personnel that was
evacuated, and how the evacuation was performed, I can't see that the
Soviet attacks on these ships could be described as a deliberate mass
murder of civilians.
In total, 2.5 million people were evacuated, of these 33 100 died in
the process, which is 1.3 percent. 245 ships were lost, 130 by
aircraft, 73 by mines, 17 by submarines, 5 by artillery. 7 ships
scuttled themselves, one collided and 12 were captured by the Soviets.
Source
Heinz Schön
Ostsee '45
Stuttgart 1995
ISBN 3-87943-856-0
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: moving Poland westwards at the expense of Germany
Poland lost about 60 000 square km and several millions
of people were forced to move.
So it was 'at the expense of Germany and Poland'.
: on 16 April 1945 at a time when Russians and Poles were ready to
: expell all German civilians from the entire region.
Poland was under Soviet occupation, hundreds of thousands
of Poles had bigger problems than deportation to Germany -
they were murdered, imprisoned in former Nazi camps
or deported to Siberia.
Not all German civilians were deported.
Some qualified workers were forced
to stay to work, sometimes till 1856. Hundreds
of thousands of Germans declared
Polish ethnicity and weren't deported. German wives of Poles
weren't deported. According to Communist documents
about 3.5 millions of Germans were deported from Poland
after the war. Communist data are unreliable but
rather less that 5 millions were deported from Poland.
: The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
: crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia,
Hel peninsula was in Poland before the war.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
:
casita
"The marking was carried out by the Special Duty Flight. The assembly point
markers were eight minutes late and illuminating flares were dropped in the
target area. No red spot fires were seen and crews were eventually
instructed to return to base with their bombs. Some crews attempted visual
bombing."
576
Squadron
> July 14/15 target could not be identified 7 Lancasters lost.
"The marking was to be carried out by Path Finder Force and illuminating
flares were dropped in the target area. It was thought that the marking
aircraft was shot down, and crews were instructed to return to base with
their bombs."
576
Squadron.
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/missile/423/mccollom.html
> July 18/19 rail lines to the battle front cut. 24 Lancasters
> lost.
Revigny was double the flying time to the Ruhr.
IE: They could have hit Dortmund, Duisberg, Dusseldorf, Essen, Hagen
and Wuppertal with the same amount of effort as it took to take out Revigny.
>Hundreds of aircraft flying at about
> the same altitude covering hundreds of acres horizontally
> with all the bombs being dropped at the same second
> is hardly "precision bombing" The target [or non target]
> would have to cover an area on the ground identical to the area
> covered by the bombers.
Back then carpet bombing was called pattern bombing.
> I read an account of the meeting of Churchill and Roosevelt
> at which Roosevelt made the statement of
> "unconditional surrender" and that some people believe that
> Roosevelt just said it but did not mean it. It was just a casual throw
>away remark.
He seems to have been thinking of US Grant.
Ref: "Delivered from Evil" by Robt Leckie.
David Thornley
>The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
>trapped, and desperately trying to catch transport). It is
>inconceivable that this was unknown to the Russian military
>leadership. It was a large rescue operation by sea, and too big to
>hide. Doenitz used every vessel he could lay his hands on -
>including Merchant Marine vessels and even small private boats. So
>why torpedo refugees if one wants to get rid off the German
>population anyway?
>
come. It was a ship of the German Navy, armed, without distinguishing
marks, and carrying well over a thousand military personnel. There
was no legal or moral reason for the Soviets to spare it.
It seems that the only reason this ship gets noticed is the large
loss of civilian life. This is entirely due to the fact that there
were a large number of civilians on a military target. This is
a tragedy, but it was a tragedy caused by the German authorities.
For one thing, had the German authorities not invaded neighboring
countries and treated the populations with the utmost brutality,
there is no obvious reason for the population to flee.
More importantly, the Germans did not make any provision for safe
evacuation of refugees. It is likely that Doenitz could have
done something to evacuate them safely; if nothing else, use
ships painted with red crosses. It is also likely that this would
not have worked (submarines have sunk enough hospital ships this
century, presumably by mistake), and Stalin may not have agreed
to any special evacuation transport. We won't know, because he
never tried.
It is understandable that refugees would have tried to flee the
Red Army (whose propensity for atrocity was exceeded only by the
Japanese and German armies), and would have been willing to take
great risks to do so. If so, it is a tragic condition, and it is
more tragic since some of the risks ended in death.
My feelings are that any blame must go to the Nazi German government,
since the Soviet submariners were acting in a militarily proper way.
The Nazis were responsible for many worse tragedies than this, so I
don't see this as all that important.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
E.F.Schelby
>In soc.history.war.world-war-ii E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>: moving Poland westwards at the expense of Germany
>Poland lost about 60 000 square km and several millions
>of people were forced to move.
>So it was 'at the expense of Germany and Poland'.
Quite so. The comment "Poland could be compensated at
Germany's expense" is taken directly from Winston Churchill.
He is talking about Stalin's proposal at Yalta of putting the
new border at the western Neisse river. (Russia and Poland, from
_Triumph and Tragedy_).
>
>: on 16 April 1945 at a time when Russians and Poles were ready to
>: expell all German civilians from the entire region.
>Poland was under Soviet occupation, hundreds of thousands
>of Poles had bigger problems than deportation to Germany -
>they were murdered, imprisoned in former Nazi camps
>or deported to Siberia.
That's not the whole picture. During the period of "wild"
expulsions, Germans were driven out by Poland. This was prior
to the Potsdam Conference and Allied agreement.
>Not all German civilians were deported.
>Some qualified workers were forced
>to stay to work, sometimes till 1956. Hundreds
>of thousands of Germans declared
>Polish ethnicity and weren't deported.
Please cite a source for this and provide information
on how this declaration was obtained. I have no doubt that
a few Germans stayed behind, and have posted an article
about a friend with a German father and a Polish mother
earlier. He was born in Polish East Prussia after the war.
[...]
>: The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
>: crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia,
>Hel peninsula was in Poland before the war.
It was in Germany in 1815 (Congress of Vienna, another European
peace conference).
It was in Germany in 1914.
After 1918/19 it was part of the Corridor.
According to my data, there were 380,000 German inhabitants in
Danzig - which is close to the Hel or Hela peninsula. Of those, an
estimated 90,000 died during flight, expulsion, and deportation for
forced labor. As far as I know Danzig was semi-encircled by the
Red Army and many people had fled to and were condensed on this
peninsula. Those with expertise on the frontlines and the military
situation can comment on this better than I could.
Best regards,
ES
casita
>illegitimate, bombing the aggressor's population is illegitimate too.
" Having found the bomb, we have used it. We have used it against those
who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have
starved beaten and executed American prisoners of war. Against those who
have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We
have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the
lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
President Harry S. Trueman 9
August, 1945.
"Japan remains. Are we going to bomb their cities flat-as in Germany-and
give the armies a walkover-as in France and Germany-or going to bomb only
their outlying factories and subsequently invade at a cost of 3 to 6 million
casualties?"
Sir Arthur
Harris 29 Mar, 1945
>One does not fight a war against barbarism by using barbarism.
General Eisenhower told his forces that they were fighting against the
Holocaust.
casita
Louis Capdeboscq
>consisting mostly of women and children is a monstrosity that cannot be
>rationalized or justfied by any civilized person.
Certainly.
(snip)
>Those who would like to make an exception on the guilt of those who
>'only' murdered Germans are perhaps unwittingly becoming little Stalins
Nobody makes exceptions. I never read ONE post in this NG claiming that what
was done to the Germans was a "good thing". There were numerous posts to the
effect that it was only *human* (i.e: not necessarily "good") that people
who would have suffered from years of occupation, and/or witnessed what the
Germans had done with their countries (as the Soviets had) would not feel
very kindly towards Germany and its inhabitants.
This is not an excuse, but part of an explanation. While the Germans who
took away the Soviet civilians' clothes and food, condemning them to a
certain death in winter, had *not* witnessed such atrocities on their own
people (but they had to live). By the way, both the Soviet and the German
troops had received massive doses of propaganda, and you are never totally
immune from those, even when you think you are because you "know they don't
tell the truth".
>Btw, nobody has as yet accused all of the Russian people (thank God!) of
>"collective guilt" for the tens of Millions murdered by Stalin.
No, mostly because they murdered at least as many Russians as Germans.
>However,
>it seems that ALL GERMANS (including their women and children) are the
>the only people on the face of this earth who can be raped and murdered
>with impunity and even justification according to some so called
>'civilized' people.
It depends who those "civilized" people you're refering to. Ilya Erhenburg
isn't representative of all of the civilized world, just as many people who
had up to then been believed "civilized" endorsed the Nazi programs.
>It is one of the reasons why these huge
>atrocities committed against Germans are kept so much a secret to this
>day.
Are they ? Even when I was in high school, and our history classes covered
(briefly) WW2, it was mentioned that Soviet occupation was very rough, that
millions of Germans were forcibly relocated, and millions died in the
process. Although it is not a topic I am particularly interested in, I can
think of many books on that subject that I read. Virtually all the books on
that period mention the German exodus in horrible conditions. For grueling
details in popular books, Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" and one of John
Irving's books (Hotel New Hampshire ?) give an insight of Soviet behavior in
the immediate post-war era.
Mensch Meyer
>To be blunt, because the ship was as legitimate a target as they
>come. It was a ship of the German Navy, armed, without distinguishing
>marks, and carrying well over a thousand military personnel. There
>was no legal or moral reason for the Soviets to spare it.
And to be "blunt" your information of the SS.W.Gustloff is
considerably scewed. Perhaps you lack sources of information.
Here is the official chronology of the ship. I will help you with
the translating the definition of "Lazarettschiff" -- it means
HOSPITAL SHIP - that's what the ship was designed as.
There are pictures on the web which display the ships fittings
and the details designed thad made the Gustloff a Hospital ship;
here begins the chronology from the day of her launching:
Lazarettschiff D (Wilhelm Gustloff)
History
The Wilhelm Gustloff as Hospital Ship "D" in 1939
**May 5, 1937 Launched.
**Mar 15, 1938 Commissioned.
**Apr 2, 1938 Maiden voyage, cruising in the North Sea as
a KdF (Strenght through Joy) ship owned by the DAF,
but managed by the Hamburg-South America ship line.
**Apr 3, 1938 The Wilhelm Gustloff received a distress
call from the Pegaway, a sinking British cargo ship in need
of help off Terschelling.
**Apr 4, 1938 In heavy sea and stormy weather, the
Gustloff reached the Pegaway and rescued all 19 of its
crew.
**Apr 10, 1940 Used as a polling station for those Germans
in Great Britian who wished to vote on the Austrian annexation
question. The polling was done outside of the 3-mile limit of
British waters, and voters were taken from and returned to
the harbor at Tilbury.
**May, 1939 The Gustloff sailed with the KdF ships Robert Ley,
Der Deutsche, Stuttgart, and Sierra Cordoba, and the non-KdF
ship Oceana. They were taking part in the transport of the
Legion Condor from Spain back to Germany after the
successful defeat of the Republican forces by Franco's
Nationalist's.
**May 24, 1939 The ships of the transport fleet arrived in
Vigo, Spain, and unloaded large amounts of medical supplies
and other materials that were given to the Spanish Social
Help organization.
**May 26, 1939 The Legion Condor loaded on the ships of the
transport fleet in Vigo harbor. The Gustloff took on 1,405 men.
**May 30, 1939 The ships, including the Gustloff, arrived in
German waters and were escorted into Hamburg harbor by
a number of German vessels, including the yacht Hamburg
and the armoured ships Admiral Graf Spee and Admiral Scheer.
**Sept 22, 1939 Commissioned into the Kriegsmarine as
Lazarettschiffe "D". (MM: translated = HOSPITAL SHIP)
**Sept, 1939 The first wounded to be taken on board the
Gustloff while in its role as a Hospital Ship - wounded from
the defeated Polish Army - were taken on in this month.
**Apr - June, 1940 Served in Norwegian waters, docking in the
port of Oslo to take on wounded and sick from the victorious
campaign in Norway.
**June 18, 1940 Set sail for Germany from Oslo, Norway,
leaving Norwegian waters transporting wounded and sick
onboard.
**Nov 20, 1940 Served as an accomodation ship for the 2.Unterseeboote-
Lehr-Division in Gotenhafen.
**Nov, 1940 - Jan, 1945 The Gustloff was anchored in
Gotenhafen and did not leave the harbor for 4 years, serving
in various barrack ship and accomodation ship postions
within the harbor.
**May, 1943 Served as a barracks ship in Gotenhafen.
**Jan 30, 1945 The Wilhelm Gustloff left Gotenhafen with
between 6-8,000 passengers, the majority being refugees.
According to the ships own records, the list of passengers
on the 30th included 918 Naval officers and men, 173 crew,
373 members of the Woman's Naval Auxiliary units,
162 wounded, and 4,424 refugees, for an official total of
6,050 people. This is according to the official list though,
and doesn't take into account the many hundreds of other
people that one way or another, were able to make their
way onto the seemingly safe decks of the Gustloff. During
the night, in blustery icy-cold weather, the Gustloff was sunk
(at 2108 01.30.45) in the 2nd worst naval disaster in history.
The Soviet sub S-13 hit the Gustloff with a spread of
3 torpedos, sinking it within 50 minutes, with the loss of
between 5-7,000 lives.
The Admiral Hipper, Löwe, T36, TF19, TS2, M341, V1703,
and the steamer Göttingen rescued between 900 and
1,000 passengers from the Baltic Sea. All others perished
with the Gustloff.
------end of chronology------
David Thornley
E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>panki...@pwr.wroc.pl (Jerzy Pankiewicz) wrote:
>
>>In soc.history.war.world-war-ii E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>
>>: The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
>>: crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia,
>>Hel peninsula was in Poland before the war.
>
>It was in Germany in 1815 (Congress of Vienna, another European
> peace conference).
>It was in Germany in 1914.
>
the following about Warsaw:
It was in Russia in 1815.
It was in Russia in 1914.
Since there was no such political entity as Poland during this time,
every piece of it was in some non-Polish country. I assume we can
agree that there is, and was, a Polish nation roughly to the east
of the German nation. In that case, we have to assume that this nation
should ideally have some territory roughly to the east of Germany.
>After 1918/19 it was part of the Corridor.
>
The Germans were very unhappy about the Corridor. This doesn't by
itself show that any specific part of it should have been German
rather than Polish. (I don't know what the ethnic composition of
the peninsula was in 1815, 1914, or 1939. Do you?)
>According to my data, there were 380,000 German inhabitants in
>Danzig - which is close to the Hel or Hela peninsula.
I think we can also agree that Danzig is a German city. In the normal
course of events, assuming a peaceful Germany, it would have become
part of Germany.
It is reasonable to argue that Germans from Danzig might flee to
a part of Poland to escape the Red Army.
pkmb
>
> > If one considers the bombing of one's own population
> >illegitimate, bombing the aggressor's population is illegitimate too.
missed it in the original post. I totally disagree with that statement.
If an aggressor attacks the population of an attacked country the armed
forces of this country are sure to retaliate by attacking the population
of the aggressor. IF one starts to fight dirty then one can't really
complain that he is being fought using the same methods (and surely what
the Allies did was much milder both in quality and quantity than what
the German forces had done to occupied countries). A person who wrote
this sentence seems to be asking for protection for the attacker from
the consequences of it's action. Who fights with a sword dies from a
sword. Pure and simple.
MArcin B.
--
Marcin Bugajski citizen of Poland. NATO member since March the 12th
1999.
This message cannot be used for commercial or scientific purposes
without
the author's consent.
George Hardy
(E.F.Schelby) says:
> The comment "Poland could be compensated at
>Germany's expense" is taken directly from Winston Churchill.
>He is talking about Stalin's proposal at Yalta (snip)
True, but not a concession. One of WSC's war aims was the
reduction of Germany. In the end, Germany was reduced from
470,000 to 360,000 sq km. Still too large in the opinion of
many non-German Europeans today.
And the removal of ethnic Germans from these lands was approved.
I can point to FDR statements in 1944 not only approving this
ethnic cleansing, but promising to aid it to the best of the
USA's ability.
George Hardy
>IF one starts to fight dirty then one can't really
>complain that he is being fought using the same methods
Actually, it was the British who bombed the civilian population
in germany months before the Germans attacked anywhere in
England. And, if you look at the pre-war planning, you will
see that the British intended such bombing as early as 1936.
We have been over and over this point. Even supplied references
to those who seem unable to find their own.
If you check it out you will find the "started it" theory held
no water at the time. The USA began unrestricted submarine warfare
against the Japanese. The Japanese had taken no such action against
the USA. And the USA depth charged swimming u-boat sailer who had
abandoned their sub. The USA awards medals for that.
pkmb
>
> In article <7l2ppf$r...@dgs.dgsys.com>, pkmb <pk...@catv.retsat1.com.pl> says:
>
> >IF one starts to fight dirty then one can't really
> >complain that he is being fought using the same methods
>
> Actually, it was the British who bombed the civilian population
> in germany months before the Germans attacked anywhere in
> England. And, if you look at the pre-war planning, you will
> see that the British intended such bombing as early as 1936.
1939. They actually tried to kill as many fleeing civilians as they
could on the roads of Poland. It was Luftwaffe which started barbaric
bombing and the GErmans got bombed the same way when the Allies gained
in strength enough. So your "the British started it first" is not true.
THe war as everything in this world is a sequence of events. One events
usually happens because something happened earlier. Just like the
bombing of Dresden and other German cities. The Allies didn't spare them
just like the Luftwaffe didn't spare Warsaw, Rotterdam and fleeing
civilians. It was just a consequence of Germany's former actions.
> We have been over and over this point. Even supplied references
> to those who seem unable to find their own.
issues of the war by the Germans. If they want to try it again and again
they will have to read the same old answers again and again. Yes history
is so boring, we can only speak about the facts ;>.
> If you check it out you will find the "started it" theory held
> no water at the time. The USA began unrestricted submarine warfare
> against the Japanese. The Japanese had taken no such action against
> the USA. And the USA depth charged swimming u-boat sailer who had
> abandoned their sub. The USA awards medals for that.
like to read about the interesting naval and airborne battles but that's
that and in Europe it was the Germans who started unlimited submarine
warfare.
Marcin B.
Angus M McLellan
wrote:
>In article <7l2ppf$r...@dgs.dgsys.com>, pkmb <pk...@catv.retsat1.com.pl> says:
>
>>IF one starts to fight dirty then one can't really
>>complain that he is being fought using the same methods
>
>Actually, it was the British who bombed the civilian population
>in germany months before the Germans attacked anywhere in
>England. And, if you look at the pre-war planning, you will
>see that the British intended such bombing as early as 1936.
Which will doubtless by why I've read that HMG refused to sanction
bombing "civilian" targets (which included, we are told, the
Schwarzwald) unless the Germans did so first. Which they did in Poland
and at Rotterdam and London. The last, I'll grant, was an accident.
Warsaw and Rotterdam weren't, regardless of the belated and
unsuccessful attempt at cancelling the second.
I'd ask for a source for the assertion, but I'd be wasting my time.
Angus
Mike Fester
: In article <7l2ppf$r...@dgs.dgsys.com>, pkmb <pk...@catv.retsat1.com.pl> says:
: If you check it out you will find the "started it" theory held
: no water at the time. The USA began unrestricted submarine warfare
: against the Japanese. The Japanese had taken no such action against
: the USA.
This is incorrect; the Japanese did, indeed, begin "unrestricted" submarine
warfare as soon the war began.
That they weren't as good at it, not were the hearts of the sub commanders
into it, and that they didn't recognize the value of interdicting supplies
via sea-lanes doesn't change that.
Mike (remove "@eyrie.org" to reply)
casita
>see that the British intended such bombing as early as 1936.
Right around when the Germans were firebombing Spanish civilians, and about
20 years after the Germans firebombed British civilians.
>The USA awards medals for that.
Perhaps so.
The British do not.
Every cook and clerk in the 8th Army got a campaign medal.
Bomber Command did not a campaign medal.
Maciej Orzeszko
<7l6t08$1ag6$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> George Hardy wrote:
> Well Germany bombed cities indiscriminately in Poland in September of
> 1939. They actually tried to kill as many fleeing civilians as they
> could on the roads of Poland. It was Luftwaffe which started barbaric
> bombing and the GErmans got bombed the same way when the Allies gained
> in strength enough. So your "the British started it first" is not true.
If I can add something : the whole business with bombing civilians
started even earlier than in 1939. How about the activity of Legion Condor
in Spain ? I know its original task was to support land troops, but don't
forget the most of casulties in Guernica in 1937 or 38 were civilians.
Luftwaffe got enough "experience" before the WWII started. Regards
Maciej Stanislaw Orzeszko
David Thornley
>>To be blunt, because the ship was as legitimate a target as they
>>come. It was a ship of the German Navy, armed, without distinguishing
>>marks, and carrying well over a thousand military personnel. There
>>was no legal or moral reason for the Soviets to spare it.
>And to be "blunt" your information of the SS.W.Gustloff is
>considerably scewed. Perhaps you lack sources of information.
Conceivable. Let's use yours.
>Here is the official chronology of the ship. I will help you with
>the translating the definition of "Lazarettschiff" -- it means
>HOSPITAL SHIP - that's what the ship was designed as.
Yup, that's what it was designed as. I fail to see the relevance.
It would certainly have been illegal to sink it if it were
functioning and marked as a hospital ship at the time of sinking.
[ much history that I do not see the relevance of snipped ]
>**Nov 20, 1940 Served as an accomodation ship for the 2.Unterseeboote-
>Lehr-Division in Gotenhafen.
I believe that housing a U-boat demonstration unit is not within the
normal activities of a hospital ship.
>**May, 1943 Served as a barracks ship in Gotenhafen.
Previous posts in this thread have described the ship as not painted
as a hospital ship. I assume that it was repainted sometime between
its 1940 hospital service and 1945. I have seen references to deck
guns also, which is incompatible with hospital ship status.
>**Jan 30, 1945 The Wilhelm Gustloff left Gotenhafen with
>between 6-8,000 passengers, the majority being refugees.
>According to the ships own records, the list of passengers
>on the 30th included 918 Naval officers and men, 173 crew,
>373 members of the Woman's Naval Auxiliary units,
>162 wounded, and 4,424 refugees, for an official total of
>6,050 people.
In other words, it was transporting nearly a thousand members of
the German armed forces. I don't know the exact status of the
female naval units, legally, and I am not going to count the wounded
as legitimate targets. The crew of a hospital ship is not a target,
but the crew of a barracks ship or transport certainly is.
Therefore, the ship was in the German Navy. It had been fitted out
as a hospital ship, but apparently had not served in that role for
well over four years, and was not painted as such. It was armed,
and carried well over a thousand military personnel. It was travelling
escorted. All of this makes it a legitimate military target.
The presence of the refugees is what makes it such a tragedy.
It is possible for an action to be legal, moral, and tragic.
Is anybody arguing that piling enough civilians on a military target
makes it illegitimate? I believe the standard interpretation is that
the power controlling a military target is responsible for keeping
civilians away from it, which the Germans completely failed to do.
Dirk Lorek
> If I can add something : the whole business with bombing civilians
>started even earlier than in 1939. How about the activity of Legion Condor
>in Spain ?
Some people have no problems to take the Nazis as example for their
own conduct.
E.F.Schelby
>In article <7kuurj$g...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
>E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>>panki...@pwr.wroc.pl (Jerzy Pankiewicz) wrote:
>>
>>>In soc.history.war.world-war-ii E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>: The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
>>>: crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia,
>>>Hel peninsula was in Poland before the war.
>>
>>It was in Germany in 1815 (Congress of Vienna, another European
>> peace conference).
>>It was in Germany in 1914.
>>
>I don't see the significance of these facts, given that I could say
>the following about Warsaw:
>
>It was in Russia in 1815.
>It was in Russia in 1914.
The significance of these facts may be hidden to those who are
unfamiliar with eastern European history. Many of these areas were
settled long ago - I think in the US such wonderful and brave people
are called "Oh pioneers." The Germans and Dutch did their pioneering
in the 13th and 14 th century, ages before nationalism and its
perils raised their ugly heads. The Corridor, on the other hand, was
an awkward modern contraption created at Versailles.
>Since there was no such political entity as Poland during this time,
>every piece of it was in some non-Polish country. I assume we can
>agree that there is, and was, a Polish nation roughly to the east
>of the German nation. In that case, we have to assume that this nation
>should ideally have some territory roughly to the east of Germany.
No objection. Plebiscites are the proper democratic solution,
especially of one wants to make the world safe for democracy.
>>After 1918/19 it was part of the Corridor.
>>
>The Germans were very unhappy about the Corridor. This doesn't by
>itself show that any specific part of it should have been German
>rather than Polish. (I don't know what the ethnic composition of
>the peninsula was in 1815, 1914, or 1939. Do you?)
Wouldn't you be unhappy to have a corridor cut the US apart? I can
just hear the uproar that would cause! The Germans in that Corridor
had lived there for generations. It was their home. They were
ordered by the gentlemen at Versailles to become citizens of Poland,
under the banner of self-determination, no less.
As to your remark about the Hela "ethnic composition," I don't
understand it. Quote:
"terrible scenes of desperation occrurred at the northern
flank around Danzig with concentrations of refugees...
crowded into that pocket" ( E. N. Peterson, _The Many Faces
of Defeat)
>>According to my data, there were 380,000 German inhabitants in
>>Danzig - which is close to the Hel or Hela peninsula.
>
>I think we can also agree that Danzig is a German city. In the normal
>course of events, assuming a peaceful Germany, it would have become
>part of Germany.
If people are hurt and angry, the normal course of events can't be
taken for granted. Revolutions and other such inconveniences may
occur. Otherwise we would have reached an utopian eternal peace on
earth long ago. We would live, for example, in a crime-free and
bigotry-free United States.
>It is reasonable to argue that Germans from Danzig might flee to
>a part of Poland to escape the Red Army.
Excuse me? Civilians from German East Prussia and elsewhere fled to
Danzig because their escape routes were cut off and because they
were abused raped robbed starved killed and haphazardly deported for
slave labor to the USSR. From your point of view, all deserved, no
doubt.
Regards,
ES
E.F.Schelby
>In article <37806d40...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
This attribution should go to E.F. Schelby. I wrote the paragraph
below:
>>The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
>>crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia, more or less
>>trapped, and desperately trying to catch transport). It is
>>inconceivable that this was unknown to the Russian military
>>leadership. It was a large rescue operation by sea, and too big to
>>hide. Doenitz used every vessel he could lay his hands on -
>>including Merchant Marine vessels and even small private boats. So
>>why torpedo refugees if one wants to get rid off the German
>>population anyway?
>>
>To be blunt, because the ship was as legitimate a target as they
>come. It was a ship of the German Navy, armed, without distinguishing
>marks, and carrying well over a thousand military personnel. There
>was no legal or moral reason for the Soviets to spare it.
I wouldn't go so far as to speak about morals. Drowning wounded
soldiers is not exactly admirable. Once upon a time the wounded were
supposed to be protected.
>It seems that the only reason this ship gets noticed is the large
>loss of civilian life. This is entirely due to the fact that there
>were a large number of civilians on a military target. This is
>a tragedy, but it was a tragedy caused by the German authorities.
Doenitz managed to do the largest sea rescue of civilians on record,
under appalling conditions of breakdown and inclement weather, yet
the loss of life through bombardment and submarines is his failing?
>For one thing, had the German authorities not invaded neighboring
>countries and treated the populations with the utmost brutality,
>there is no obvious reason for the population to flee.
This, dear Mr. Thornley, is like telling them to "eat cake." Have
you ever read Senator Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power? " It's
old now, but the problem it addresses persists.
>More importantly, the Germans did not make any provision for safe
>evacuation of refugees.
>It is likely that Doenitz could have >done something to evacuate
>them safely; if nothing else, use ships painted with red crosses.
Sure, Doenitz could have done a magicians trick: produce a brand new
German fleet from the Genie bottle, and make the Russians vanish.
Since he was not a sorcerer in command of special effects but only a
man running on almost empty, he did the extraordinary in trying to
help so many people. The sea rescue managed to evacuate about 2.5
million people.
>It is also likely that this would >not have worked (submarines have
>sunk enough hospital ships this century, presumably by mistake), and
>Stalin may not have agreed to any special evacuation transport.
>We won't know, because he >never tried.
It would have made no difference whatsoever. Stalin never gave a
hoot about markings on transports for the wounded, on hospital
ships, or about other such niceties.
>It is understandable that refugees would have tried to flee the
>Red Army (whose propensity for atrocity was exceeded only by the
>Japanese and German armies), and would have been willing to take
>great risks to do so. If so, it is a tragic condition, and it is
>more tragic since some of the risks ended in death.
Well, thank you for your insight and understanding. Both are
overwhelming.
>My feelings are that any blame must go to the Nazi German government,
>since the Soviet submariners were acting in a militarily proper way.
>The Nazis were responsible for many worse tragedies than this, so I
>don't see this as all that important.
That is a familiar stance. You seem to condone massive and atrocious
human suffering as long as it is inflicted on 'enemy' civilians.
ES
E.F.Schelby
>sch...@kitsune.swcp.com (E.F.Schelby) wrote:
>
>>DiL...@pobox.com (Dirk Lorek) wrote:
>>
>>>Nor do I (which is well-known I hope). The Gustloff was a disaster and
>>>a very large tragedy, but I can't see that it was a deliberate attempt
>>>to kill civilians. Troop transporters were legitimate targets for
>>>Uboats and the Soviet submarine were given no indications that the
>>>Gustloff wasn't one (and in fact, she was one, partially).
You are right, we don't know for sure. However, the Gustloff was not
a troop transporter proper. Another poster has given us a history of
the ship.
>
>[snip]
>
>>Perhaps you have some new information that I am unaware off?
>
>I'm not quite sure how to interpret this request. I was describing the
>circumstances during which the Gustloff was sunk. According to the
>source I gave, the Gustloff cannot be described as a civilian rescue
>ship, it was painted in military gray, was armed with two guns, and
>traveled escorted in darkness.
Thank you for your answer. My question was related to the larger
patterns apparent at the time.
There was no fleet of civilian rescue ships. The Gustloff had been a
cruise ship, then served as a barracks and what not vessel. She was
utilized for rescue operations when the urgent need arose. Do you
think her color mattered as she was traveling in darkness?
>To any submarine commander (including >German ones), this was a valid target
>as far as I can tell.
Are Verwundeten-Transporters legitimate targets? Did the remnants of
the German Kriegsmarine amount to much at this final stage? Surely,
Russian military commanders knew that large numbers of civilians
were fleeing. After all, the Red Army overrun the treks, and they
were attacked from the air. To me this looks like end-stage activity
of the Dresden, Wuerzburg, etc. type.
>I can't tell to what extent the Soviets were aware of the civilian
>evacuation by sea. My understanding is that they at least were aware
>of the evacuation of military personnel that occurred by the same
>means. It seems the latter was not insignificant and although I have
>no ratio I would _guess_ from my readings that at least about half of
>the evacuees were Wehrmacht personnel (many wounded).
I have not much information on the ratio either, but it seems likely
that most of the military personnel were wounded. We know how
hopeless the situation was on the eastern front in the winter and
early spring of 1945. It seems highly improbable that men who were
not casualties and could still lift a finger were allowed to ship
out.
Some specifics are found in the account by Eva Krutein, who,
with her small child, got out of Danzig. It was very difficult to
receive a permit. She managed to get one. It said:
Permit to board the Ship Preussen
One Mother and One Child
Danzig, January 30, 1945
On the piers were scenes of chaos. Refugees had trekked for weeks
through snow and ice and war. They were in corresponding condition.
Starving horses couldn't be shot because no one had weapons or ammo.
Krutein didn't get out on the Preussen, but on the ocean liner
Deutschland. She says 10,000 people were on board, an overload of
8,500. The Gustloff had left a few hours earlier, and they received
word that she went down.
>In the largest disaster, the sinking of the Goya for instance, almost
>all victims >were military personnel. Also the von Steuben carried large
>number of >wounded Wehrmacht soldiers during her journeys, on the first trip it
>were 2537 wounded and 100 refugees, on the second trip 3 070 wounded
>and 372 refugees.
What's the difference between shooting torpedoes at the wounded and
machine-gunning ship-wrecked submariners after their vessel was
sunk? I am sure there are some legal fine points but to me both are
equally appalling.
>I have no numbers for her last trip, but my source >says that the wounded
>were taken on board first, and only when all were on board, the refugees
>were allowed to enter.
According to my source, the Steuben was strictly a
Verwundeten-Trasporter', carrying wounded men.
>The only ship sunk >with a larger number of civilian casualties than military
>casualties >seems to be the Gustloff.
If that is so, then how were 2.5 million people rescued? Surely,
the majority were civilians. 900,000 refugees from East Prussia and
other areas were shipped from Danzig/Hela alone.
>I have the highest respect for all the victims, but given the significant
>part of military personnel that was >evacuated, and how the evacuation was
>performed,
Yes, so do I.
>I can't see that the Soviet attacks on these ships could be described as a
>deliberate mass >murder of civilians.
No one cared about the murder of civilians at the time. How about
the deliberate attacks by air on the treks of fleeing people? Should
we classify that as collateral damage?
>In total, 2.5 million people were evacuated, of these 33 100 died in
>the process, which is 1.3 percent.
That is quite a success rate achieved under dismal conditions. But
it doesn't lessen the impact of drowning 33,100 helpless people .
>245 ships were lost, 130 by >aircraft, 73 by mines, 17 by submarines, 5 by
>artillery. 7 ships >scuttled themselves, one collided and 12 were captured by
>the Soviets.
Thanks for the Heinz Schoen source. Eva Krutein's book is _Eva's
War_, Albuquerque: Amador, 1990. ISBN 0-938513-08-7.
My second source was: Edward N. Peterson. _The Many Faces of Defeat:
The German People's Experience in 1945_. Bern & New York: Peter
Lang, 1990, ISBN 0-8204-1351-8.
Best regards,
ES
John D Salt
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
[Snips]
>Actually, it was the British who bombed the civilian population
>in germany months before the Germans attacked anywhere in
>England.
>We have been over and over this point. Even supplied references
>to those who seem unable to find their own.
submarine warfare has been corrected by another poster]
We have, indeed, been over and over this point. Nonetheless
George seems to be unable to remember much of the previous
discussion.
In particular, he seems unable to remember the point that,
in the lifetimes of all those in senior leadership positions
in the UK at the time, the Germans had bombed civilian
targets in London during WW1. My own memory of the previous
discussion is by no means perfect, and perhaps it is for
that reason that I do not recall George ever providing a
satisfactory answer to my question of why the British should
have assumed that Hitler was going to behave in a more
gentlemanly fashion than the Kaiser in this matter.
All the best,
John.
--
John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
David Thornley
In article <7l88n9$dhm$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
>
>>In article <7kuurj$g...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
>>E.F.Schelby <sch...@kitsune.swcp.com> wrote:
>>>panki...@pwr.wroc.pl (Jerzy Pankiewicz) wrote:
>>>>: The refugees on the ships fled from the Red Army (they had been
>>>>: crowding into the Hela peninsula in West Prussia,
>>>>Hel peninsula was in Poland before the war.
>>>It was in Germany in 1815 (Congress of Vienna, another European
>>>It was in Germany in 1914.
>>I don't see the significance of these facts, given that I could say
>>the following about Warsaw:
>>It was in Russia in 1815.
>>It was in Russia in 1914.
>The significance of these facts may be hidden to those who are
>unfamiliar with eastern European history. Many of these areas were
>settled long ago - I think in the US such wonderful and brave people
>are called "Oh pioneers."
I am unfamiliar with the "oh" part of the name.
The Germans and Dutch did their pioneering
>in the 13th and 14 th century, ages before nationalism and its
>perils raised their ugly heads. The Corridor, on the other hand, was
>an awkward modern contraption created at Versailles.
We seem to be missing a stage. In, I believe, the eighteenth century,
Poland was divvied up by various powers, primarily the Prussians,
the Russians, and the Austrians. Aside from a brief appearance under
Napoleon, there was no Polish country until 1919. We can consider
the Corridor to be an awkward modern contraption, but it was not
created just to annoy Germans. It was an attempt to rectify a
long-standing injustice.
>>Since there was no such political entity as Poland during this time,
>>every piece of it was in some non-Polish country. I assume we can
>No objection. Plebiscites are the proper democratic solution,
>especially of one wants to make the world safe for democracy.
But plebiscites on what scale? There was a natural desire to create
usable national borders, as opposed to the fractal borders that would
have occurred with plebiscites on small areas. I rather assume that
a plebiscite conducted on Poland as a whole would have been against
being part of Germany. Obviously there were people, and areas, that
did not want to be where they were put. The Versailles answer may have
been wrong, but in that case I don't think there was a right answer.
>>>After 1918/19 it was part of the Corridor.
>>>
>>The Germans were very unhappy about the Corridor. This doesn't by
>>itself show that any specific part of it should have been German
>Wouldn't you be unhappy to have a corridor cut the US apart? I can
>just hear the uproar that would cause! The Germans in that Corridor
>had lived there for generations. It was their home. They were
>ordered by the gentlemen at Versailles to become citizens of Poland,
>under the banner of self-determination, no less.
Well, yes. There were also, doubtless, Poles who found that their
ancestral homes remained in Germany. They were, presumably, unhappy
about that. Where was their self-determination?
>As to your remark about the Hela "ethnic composition," I don't
>understand it. Quote:
Neither do I. The discussion started about the drowning of refugees
from the Hela peninsula. Then a discussion started about whether
it was Polish or German, and I jumped in because of some specious
arguments. It seemed to me that asking the ethnic composition of the
inhabitants was more relevant than whether or not it had been part of
Poland when there was no Poland.
>>>According to my data, there were 380,000 German inhabitants in
>>>Danzig - which is close to the Hel or Hela peninsula.
>>I think we can also agree that Danzig is a German city. In the normal
>>course of events, assuming a peaceful Germany, it would have become
>>part of Germany.
>If people are hurt and angry, the normal course of events can't be
>taken for granted.
A pity that. As long as people demand that national borders bet set
for the convenience of their people, this will continue. This does
not necessarily mean that the Germans should get what they want, lest they
throw a tantrum and cause a war and murder tens of millions of innocents
for no particular reason. I assume this is not what you mean, but
I am having trouble finding another meaning.
>>It is reasonable to argue that Germans from Danzig might flee to
>>a part of Poland to escape the Red Army.
>Excuse me? Civilians from German East Prussia and elsewhere fled to
>Danzig because their escape routes were cut off and because they
>were abused raped robbed starved killed and haphazardly deported for
>slave labor to the USSR. From your point of view, all deserved, no
>doubt.
Certainly not. They deserved such treatment no more than, say, the
Jews or the Poles or the people of the Soviet Union deserved the
treatment they got from the Germans. Well, lots of them did not
deserve such treatment.
Anyway, it is important to realize that there were reasons for this
mistreatment. Not that it was justified, but that it was to be
expected under the circumstances. It was a fairly direct result of
actions of the German government and very large numbers of Germans
in Poland and the Soviet Union. A responsible German government
or a responsible German army would have prevented much or all of
those atrocities. The moral tragedy is that so many of the victims
had little or nothing to do with creating that government or
forming that army.
The Red Army was not an act of God. It was formed over several years
of fighting the German army and seeing what Germans had done in
Soviet territory. If WWII was the natural outgrowth of Versailles,
then the terror in Germany was the natural outgrowth of WWII.
pkmb
>
> "Maciej Orzeszko" <Maciej....@geofizyka.torun.pl> wrote:
>
> > If I can add something : the whole business with bombing civilians
> >started even earlier than in 1939. How about the activity of Legion Condor
> >in Spain ?
>
> Some people have no problems to take the Nazis as example for their
> own conduct.
>
mean by this statement?
Dirk Lorek
wrote:
>Dirk Lorek wrote:
>> "Maciej Orzeszko" <Maciej....@geofizyka.torun.pl> wrote:
>> > If I can add something : the whole business with bombing civilians
>> >started even earlier than in 1939. How about the activity of Legion Condor
>> >in Spain ?
>> Some people have no problems to take the Nazis as example for their
>> own conduct.
>Both Maciej and me are from Poland. Could you kindly explain what do you
>mean by this statement?
It should be obvious that I do not believe that it was Maciej who
_conducted_ the bombing of German cities, so I was of course aiming
not at Poles or Colombians, but at the conductors, more precisely the
leadership of RAF Bomber Command.
There is need to take the statement personally, unless you two are of
the opinion that Nazi standards for the conduct of war are the ones
which should be followed.
Carl Alex Nielsen
<7l8suj$jvs$1...@molnir.brunel.ac.uk>...
> satisfactory answer to my question of why the British should
> have assumed that Hitler was going to behave in a more
> gentlemanly fashion than the Kaiser in this matter.
The "Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations
Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938." (Yes I do know it
didn't get finished before the war, and wasn't binding for anybody)
seems to indicate that there was some common understanding that
bombing civilians should be explicitly banned at the time.
The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places
was in effect and would IMHO forbid many of the strategic bomber operations
undertaken by all parties in the war.
--
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Love me - Take me as I think I am
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: inhabitants was more relevant than whether or not it had been part of
: Poland when there was no Poland.
It happens (quite frequently) that people say -
Auschwitz in Poland. Auschwitz like Hela were in Reich
during WWII, but there existed the Polish government
in exile and German annexations weren't respected
by the majority of independent countries.
So probably the most precise description is -
Auschwitz and Hela in occupied Poland.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
pkmb
> The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places
> was in effect and would IMHO forbid many of the strategic bomber operations
> undertaken by all parties in the war.
The Germans broke those first. Why should countries attacked were
constrained by those conventions?
David Thornley
>John D Salt <John...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote in article
><7l8suj$jvs$1...@molnir.brunel.ac.uk>...
>
>Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938." (Yes I do know it
>didn't get finished before the war, and wasn't binding for anybody)
>seems to indicate that there was some common understanding that
>bombing civilians should be explicitly banned at the time.
>
by the Luftwaffe. That particular convention would have banned the
German bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam.
>The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places
>was in effect and would IMHO forbid many of the strategic bomber operations
>undertaken by all parties in the war.
>
The above draft convention extended the definition of a defended place,
in addition to forbidding bombing where there was going to be extensive
damage to civilian targets.
In any case, as far as I can tell, all strategic bombing targets in
the war were defended. There were military forces (and sometimes
naval forces) in front of them if not in them, defending them from
opposing armies. There were fighters in the air, or at least available.
I would conjecture that almost all such targets had anti-aircraft guns.
I would suggest studying not only the Hague(IV) conventions on bombardment
by ground forces but also the Hague(IX) concerning bombardment by naval
forces. Aerial bombardment is more similar to naval than to military
bombardment, in that the bombarding forces are not in the close company
of potential occupying forces. At the time of those Hague conventions,
it was essentially impossible to bombard a city at a distance. Therefore,
if an army was in range to bombard a city, it was present to occupy it,
and the only reason it would not be able to occupy it would be if it
were defended. The Hague(IX) convention provides a limited right to
bombard targets in undefended cities, provided the populace refuses to
dismantle the targets themselves.
Donald Phillipson
> The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places
> was in effect and would IMHO forbid many of the strategic bomber operations
> undertaken by all parties in the war.
This (by itself) is no help. A city with a few AA guns and
a fighter defence zone between it and the enemy bomber bases must
be considered "defended."
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
casita
>a fighter defence zone between it and the enemy bomber bases must
>be considered "defended."
The AA guns, in addition to their defence capablity, were morale boosters.
The townfolk could hear something being done for them. But the real defence
was the night-fighters. Bombers were often shot down travelling to and from
targets.
The problem Hitler had was showing the people he was defending the cities.
He went out of his way to collect photos and newsreel of destroyed bombers
and dead or captured crewmen.
His greatest mistake of WW2 was cancelling intruder missions to England.
They had no morale value, because they couldn't take photos.
David Thornley
>
>>To be blunt, because the ship was as legitimate a target as they
>>come. It was a ship of the German Navy, armed, without distinguishing
>>marks, and carrying well over a thousand military personnel. There
>>was no legal or moral reason for the Soviets to spare it.
>
>I wouldn't go so far as to speak about morals. Drowning wounded
>soldiers is not exactly admirable. Once upon a time the wounded were
>supposed to be protected.
>
according to the information in this thread. They are not supposed
to be protected, and killing them in a warlike manner is not exactly
disgraceful.
>>It seems that the only reason this ship gets noticed is the large
>>loss of civilian life. This is entirely due to the fact that there
>>were a large number of civilians on a military target. This is
>>a tragedy, but it was a tragedy caused by the German authorities.
>
>Doenitz managed to do the largest sea rescue of civilians on record,
>under appalling conditions of breakdown and inclement weather, yet
>the loss of life through bombardment and submarines is his failing?
>
Yes. He failed to separate people who were legitimate military
targets and people who weren't. By doing this, he created a risky
situation for the civilians. Whether this was a good risk to take is
another matter; since he did evacuate large numbers of civilians, it
might be argued so.
>>For one thing, had the German authorities not invaded neighboring
>>countries and treated the populations with the utmost brutality,
>>there is no obvious reason for the population to flee.
>
>This, dear Mr. Thornley, is like telling them to "eat cake." Have
>you ever read Senator Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power? " It's
>old now, but the problem it addresses persists.
>
I haven't read it, so I can't comment as precisely as I'd like. I am
not blaming the waging of war on the German civilians, but pointing out
that the German government and German army created a situation that
greatly endangered German civilians. At least some elements of the Red
Army tried to restrain atrocities (as some elements of the German army
did earlier), but they were not successful. One reason for the lack
of success was that these soldiers knew what the Germans had done.
If the German government had not set out on a course of armed aggression,
there would have been no war between Germany and the Soviet Union.
I don't know if there would have been one without the German attack
in 1941, but that very definitely started one. Had the German occupiers
acted like their WWI counterparts, it is likely that the Red Army
would have been more correct in its occupation policies.
Violence begets violence, and I am readier to praise those who break
the cycle than to blame those who perpetuate it, particularly when
they perpetuate it on a smaller scale, as the Red Army did.
>>More importantly, the Germans did not make any provision for safe
>>evacuation of refugees.
>
>>It is likely that Doenitz could have >done something to evacuate
>>them safely; if nothing else, use ships painted with red crosses.
>
>Sure, Doenitz could have done a magicians trick: produce a brand new
>German fleet from the Genie bottle, and make the Russians vanish.
Why produce a brand new fleet? Why not try to negotiate with the
Russians? The tragedy occurred because Doenitz was combining a
military and civilian evacuation that was inextricably mixed. The
Soviet sub had every right to shoot at the ship transporting a thousand
Kriegsmarine personnel. Had the uniformed personnel not been on board,
it would at least be possible to argue that the ship was not a
legitimate target.
If, as you say, Stalin wanted German civilians out of the area,
possibly Doenitz could have negotiated a civilian evacuation.
Do you have any evidence that Doenitz ever considered a legitimate
civilian evacuation?
>It would have made no difference whatsoever. Stalin never gave a
>hoot about markings on transports for the wounded, on hospital
>ships, or about other such niceties.
>
That seems a rather broad statement, particularly considering the
restricted activity of the Red Banner Fleets for most of the war.
It may well be true, but I'd like to see some evidence.
>>It is understandable that refugees would have tried to flee the
>
>Well, thank you for your insight and understanding. Both are
>overwhelming.
>
My sympathy is genuine, but not overwhelming.
>>My feelings are that any blame must go to the Nazi German government,
>>since the Soviet submariners were acting in a militarily proper way.
>>The Nazis were responsible for many worse tragedies than this, so I
>>don't see this as all that important.
>
>That is a familiar stance. You seem to condone massive and atrocious
>human suffering as long as it is inflicted on 'enemy' civilians.
>
No, I do not condone such suffering. I fail to see any statement
I have made that implies it; if I have made such a statement, I
apologize for misleading people.
I am stating that the attack was a perfectly legitimate act of war
on the part of the Soviet Union. The circumstances that made the
evacuation desirable were primarily set up by the German government
and the German army. The circumstances that made civilian casualties
a necessary part of legitimate acts of war were set up by the German
navy.
Therefore, any and all applicable blame falls upon the German authorities,
not on the Soviet ones. As you pointed out, it is possible that the
German authorities could have behaved differently with approximately
the same results, and then I would blame the Soviets.
I am not trying to trivialize the suffering, but this does seem like
a fairly small atrocity compared to some engineered by the responsible
authorities.
Patryk Labuda
their now but they didn't mention that HEl (not Hela) is in poland NoW not
only before the war. and yes the corridor we owned to the baltic sea was
actually the official reason for the start of world war II. and yes its in
our bounderias today too. And the corridor was not created to annoy the
germans it was simply always polish territory which we regained after 123
tears of captivity under prussain control and parts of it might have been
russian too. The corridor was there for economical purposes because we
needed access to the baltic Sea - obvious whyhuh? But the most important
thing is that the statement that those areas were german are completely
false. of course we cannot say they were entirely polissh because the people
thta lived there actually had no feeling of a nationality but you cannot say
those were german teritories just like Gdansk or Danzig wasn't a german
city! Using that type of thinking Prague was german too in lets say 1942.
Those areas were polish since the 12 century and were under german rule for
about a hundred years - that leaves 9 centuries of polish domination and you
say that those were german or prussain territories? nonono! i cant agree
their of course a lot of germans lived there but historically the land
belonged to us so we ahd every right to keep it so saying that we took it or
it was given to us by Versailles just to annoy the germans is not correct!
Nuff now cuz history is too wide spread to go on now
labas
Dirk Lorek
>"Carl Alex Nielsen" (c...@gis.dk) writes:
>
>> The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places
>> was in effect and would IMHO forbid many of the strategic bomber operations
>> undertaken by all parties in the war.
>
>This (by itself) is no help. A city with a few AA guns and
>a fighter defence zone between it and the enemy bomber bases must
>be considered "defended."
There exists an interesting court decision in this matter. The trial
was about the atomic bombs, but the court investigated also the notion
of defended cities:
Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State
Japan, District Court of Tokyo. December 7, 1963.
The verdict can be found in
E. Lauterpacht (ed)
International Law Reports Vol 32
Butterworths
London 1966
An excerpt follows:
"No general treaty respecting aerial bombardment has been concluded.
However, according to the customary rules generally recognized in
international law concerning hostile acts, there is a distinction
between a defended city and an undefended city with regard to
bombardment by land forces, and between a defended area and an
undefended area with regard to bombardment by naval forces. While
indiscriminate bombing of a defended city or a defended area is
permissible, in regard to an undefended city or an undefended area
only bombardment directed at combatants and military installations
(military objectives) and not against non-combatants and non-military
installations (non-military objectives) is permissible [...]
What, then, is the distinction between a defended city and an
undefended city? In principle, a defended city is a city which resists
an attempt at occupation by land forces. A city even with defence
installations and armed forces cannot be said to be a defended city if
it is far away from the battlefield and is not in immediate danger of
occupation by the enemy. Since there is no military necessity for
indiscriminate bombardment, only bombing of military objectives there
is permissible. However, indiscriminate bombardment is permissible on
grounds of military necessity against a city which resists an attempt
at occupation by the enemy, since in that case an attack based on the
distinction between military objectives and non-military objectives is
of little military effect and cannot achieve the intended purpose.
Thus it can be concluded that it is a generally recognized principle
of international law respecting air warfare that indiscriminate aerial
bombardment going beyond the aerial bombardment of military objectives
is not permissible in regard to an undefended city.
Of course it is possible that aerial bombardment of a military
objective will result also in the destruction of non-military
objectives or in casualties to non-combatants; this is not unlawful as
long as it is an inevitable result incidental to the aerial
bombardment of a military objective. Nevertheless, it remains true
that aerial bombardment directed at a non-military objective or
without distinction between military objectives and non-military
objectives (the so-called 'blind aerial bombardment of an undefended
city') is not permissible in the light of the principle enunciated
above [...]
It is difficult to deny that the concept of a military objective,
though prescribed by various expressions in these treaties, is not
necessarily static in content but may change with time, and its scope
tends to be enlarged under conditions of total war. Nevertheless, the
distinction between a military objective and a non-military objective
cannot be said to have completely disappeared. For example, schools,
churches, temples, shrines, hospitals and private houses cannot be
classed as military objectives, even under conditions of total war. If
the concept of total war were to be taken to imply that everyone who
is a national of a belligerent State is a combatant, and that all
means of production are means of injuring the enemy, there would arise
the necessity to destroy the whole population and all the property of
the enemy, and it would be meaningless to distinguish between a
military objective and a non-military objective. However, this concept
of total war has been propounded in recent times simply to point to
the fact that the outcome of a war is not decided only by armed forces
and weapons, but that other factors - mainly economic factors - such
as energy, resources, productive capacity of industry, food stuffs,
and trade, and human factors including the general population and the
labour force, also have a far reaching effect on the method and the
potential of war. Thus the concept of total war has not been
propounded as consisting of a mere failure to distinguish between
combatants and non-combatants, etc., as has been argued; nor, indeed,
has there been any case of that kind. Accordingly, it is wrong to
claim that the distinction between a military objective and a
non-military objective has disappeared under the situation of total
war."
Carl Alex Nielsen
<377A8833...@catv.retsat1.com.pl>...
> Carl Alex Nielsen wrote:
>
> > The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places
> > was in effect and would IMHO forbid many of the strategic bomber
operations
> > undertaken by all parties in the war.
>
> constrained by those conventions?
Because the convention still holds when one of the parties violates it, as
long
as neither part denounces it.
In the case of the Hague(IV) convention a party, that wants to denounce it
has
to state so 1 year before it wants not to be bound by the treaty.
If a violation of a convention frees the violated part of the convention
from the
restrictions of the convention, then the convention would be meaningless.
Then any individual soldier could invalidate the treaty by simply violating
it,
so if f.ex. the Germans could document that any allied soldier had killed a
POW, the the Germans would be free to masacer all POW's in their custody.
If the allies had wanted to, they could have denounced the treaty, and then
have
violated it without that being a warcrime, but they chose not to.
In no civilized society can it be a valid defense, that the victim of a
crime is
himself a criminal or a relative of a criminal.
Carl Alex Nielsen
<7leusm$joe$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...[The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places]
> This (by itself) is no help. A city with a few AA guns and
> a fighter defence zone between it and the enemy bomber bases must
> be considered "defended."
If this is the case, then what are those undefended places mentioned in the
Hague(IV) convention ?
By your interpretation you could argue that if a country has any soldiers
at all,
then the whole country is a defended place, and therefore a valid target.
David Thornley
><7leusm$joe$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>> "Carl Alex Nielsen" (c...@gis.dk) writes:
>[The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places]
>
>> This (by itself) is no help. A city with a few AA guns and
>> a fighter defence zone between it and the enemy bomber bases must
>> be considered "defended."
>
>If this is the case, then what are those undefended places mentioned in the
>Hague(IV) convention ?
>
whenever a place can be occupied without a fight, it is undefended.
Why do all of these arguments revolve around Hague(IV)? I think
Hague(IX) is at least as applicable. Air forces do not practice
land warfare, so I would think that the rules for them would be
drawn from the rules for land and naval warfare.
>By your interpretation you could argue that if a country has any soldiers
>at all,
>then the whole country is a defended place, and therefore a valid target.
>
Any place the soldiers are willing or able to fight for is defended.
E.F.Schelby
It will be best for me to stop debating this topic with you. From
your point of view, what you say may sound perfectly reasonable. But
to me, it is pure abstraction, and cruel abstraction at that. It
only shows how deep the gap between our perceptions and experiences
really is. Your posts also make me unhappy, and once you made it
through that war life is too beautiful and short for that.
Everything you say is utterly removed from the reality of the war on
the eastern front.
I have heard that a documentary of the Gustloff sinking is currently
being made. We will have to wait and see if this is the case, and if
so, how authentic it will be.
Regards,
ES
Donald Phillipson
> [The Hague(IV) conventions prohibition on attacking undefended places]
> Donald Phillipson <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
> <7leusm$joe$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>> This (by itself) is no help. A city with a few AA guns and
>> a fighter defence zone between it and the enemy bomber bases must
>> be considered "defended."
"Carl Alex Nielsen" (c...@gis.dk) writes:
> If this is the case, then what are those undefended places mentioned in the
> Hague(IV) convention ?
> By your interpretation you could argue that if a country has any soldiers
> at all, then the whole country is a defended place, and therefore a valid
> target.
No, this twists the argument full circle. As CAF first posted,
rules about bombarding "undefended" places were drafted approx.
1900 with only naval and artillery gunnery in mind. When the
concept was extended to bombardment from the air, people had to
define "defended" in this context. Obvious considerations
include AA guns and fighter defence zones. Seeking
to add "any soldiers" is a transparent attempt to make all
aerial bombing illegal: but there are better arguments than this.
Monte Koppe
>It happens (quite frequently) that people say -
>Auschwitz in Poland. Auschwitz like Hela were in Reich
>during WWII,
That might be so - but the Poles as soon as the Germans were
thrown out of "occupied" Poland, immediately imitated the Germans
and used the Nazi concentration camps to detain their own enemies
- never even closed the camps, just changed the command.
And that includes Auschwitz, where your people kept political
prisoners for years after WWII was over.
Swietochlowice in southern Poland was another such concentration
camp, where Poles detained and tortured inmates not much different
than what the Nazis had done.
One of the camp survivors, Dorota Boriczek, described the conditions
in
the camp as horrific. "We could hear the cries of men. They would beat
and torture them and throw the bodies out of the window. There was
nothing to eat, a hunger that you cannot imagine. We were lucky to have
a piece of bread once a day, nothing else, and water. Both my mother
and I had typhus. We were separated and I didn't know she was alive.
I had a high fever and when I opened my eyes, I was sleeping next to a
lady from Switzerland. I slept with her under one blanket. I was happy
that she was dead, because that meant I could have her blanket."
(Inside _Polish_ concentration camps.)
(John Sack, the American author of "An Eye for An Eye.")
casita
You have no case against Bomber Command.
Area bombing efficiency was measured by built up acreage destroyed. That
means property damage, caused not by blowing it up, but by burning it
down.
Starting fires, regardless of intent and fatalities, was arson back then,
and maybe still is.
Ref: State of Connecut, 1944. There was no death penalty for arson.
That would include blasting out windows and rooves for seeding and
oxygenation as well as HE which busted fire truck routes and fire hydrants.
Timers encouraged the fireman to keep their heads down.
The Command warned Germany to evacuate cities involved in war production
from early 1942, and under Goebbels orders, non-essential people were
relocated to safe havens elsewhere. The cities were highly defended by a
sophisticated night-fighter system, AA and fire service. In fact, many
more German firefighters died in ground battle action than in air raids.
And, they could beat the arson rap. Claim, self-defence.
Take a place like Kassel. Those "non-combattants" were building V1 rockets
to blow Londoners to Kingdom come. Production was set back, and many
Allied "non-comabattant" lives were saved.
Flying Officer Sewell, RCAF, who was lynched at Kassel was a victim of a
war crime as much as any victim gassed during the Holocaust.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
: thrown out of "occupied" Poland, immediately imitated the Germans
: and used the Nazi concentration camps to detain their own enemies
: - never even closed the camps, just changed the command.
Big Soviet Army (till 1990) and NKVD units ( after the war)
were stationed in Poland
till 1990. Soviet 'advisors' controlled the life even
on low level till 1956. Stalin personally corrected the text
of the 'Constitution'.
: And that includes Auschwitz, where your people kept political
: prisoners for years after WWII was over.
'My' people didn't. My father was in Siberia,
my uncle in Great Britain and never visited
the Communist Poland.
: Swietochlowice in southern Poland was another such concentration
: camp, where Poles detained and tortured inmates not much different
: than what the Nazis had done.
Shlomo Morel was a good pupil of Nazi teachers.
Almost whole his family murdered, he was mistreated
during the whole war. In a more rational
world he would have been treated as a lunatic.
The Communists used his hatred.
Jerzy Pankiewicz
polo
>
> >In the case of the Hague(IV) convention a party,
>
> You have no case against Bomber Command.
> Area bombing efficiency was measured by built up acreage destroyed. That
> means property damage, caused not by blowing it up, but by burning it
> down.
> Starting fires, regardless of intent and fatalities, was arson back then,
> and maybe still is.
I just watched a tape sent to me about USAAF bombing. The
AMERICAN narrator referred to the not very precise precision bombing,
and how the USAAF were finally ordered to "BOMB CIVILIANS" and drop fire
bombs.
As he was telling about the alledged precision bombing the film
showed hundreds of bombs falling in orchards and fields.
My question might be was the narrator really American?
Or if he WAS has he been drummed out of the USA for lying???
mj2000
>AMERICAN narrator referred to the not very precise precision bombing,
>and how the USAAF were finally ordered to "BOMB CIVILIANS" and drop fire
>bombs.
American bomber crews were the "bravest of the brave". That's not just my
opinion, Harris himself said that, and he was speaking for his crews.
The touchy part is that Gen Spaatz was very guarded in his choice of words,
whereas Harris and LeMay were quite the opposite. But, the fact is that by
late 1944 the 8th Air Force was dumping incendiaries on German cities. Or
as some like to refer to incendiaries, as "firebombs", which is not quite
true because firebombs are napalm type bombs.
It puts Bomber Command in a delicate position because officially, they area
bombed and the 8th AF precision bombed Germany. But, by late in the war,
the distinction between policies was very threadbare.
Lawrence Dillard
attempt to limit civilian casualties caused by dropping bombs on legitimate
military targets located in proximity to non-military institutions,
including civilian housing.
However, the instruments used in this attempt over Europe were not quite up
to the task; that is, the B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers and the Norden
bombsight, were only theoretically capable of carrying out "precision"
strikes from the altitudes employed.
Also, the task of the Norden bombardier was no mean one; it really took
years for even a competent candidate to become thoroughly proficient at the
task, even in peacetime. The USAAF found that it simply was unable to
produce large numbers of bombardiers who could employ the Norden sight in
precisely the manner intended. In the realm of combat flying, the USAAF
also discovered that mission combat losses disrupted the carefully-layed-out
formations the bombers were supposed to maintain, which were designed to
provide total coverage of the target; campaign combat losses reduced the
numbers of capable bombardiers and navigators so fast that peacetime
replacement training schedules could not keep pace, and were therefore
shortened to met the demand for such specialists. And European weather
rarely exhibited clear skies and unlimited visibility.
Nonetheless, the USAAF had contracted to "precision" bombing in daylight so
as to hold collateral damage to non-military institutions to a minimum.
One method utilized was to rely on highly-skilled combinations of
pilots/navigators/bombardiers in "lead crews", upon which the bulk of each
formation relied for getting to the correct IP and for the timing of
toggling the bombloads. That is, the bulk of the formation kept careful
watch for when the lead crew opened bomb-bay doors, after which everyone
would folow suit, and for when the lead crews toggled; upon sighting the
lead crews' bombs leaving the bomb-bay, everyone else would also toggle.
The lead crew intentionally toggled a bit late; in theory, this meant that
about five per cent of all bombs would fall "long" of the target, 90 per
cent would fall in the "target area", and five per cent would fall "short",
ensuring great damage to the target and limiting collateral damage to a bare
minimum. In theory, of course.
When this technique worked, as when Bombing Through Overcast (BTO, using a
radar device nicknamed "Mickey" IIRC), the results were impressive, and the
USAAF commanders could live with their consciences because the attempt had
at least been made to keep collateral damage to a minimum.
Different tactics were employed by USAAF medium bombers. They bombed from a
lower altitude than the heavies and generally produced significantly better
accuracy, aircraft for aircraft. Mediums were sent out after bridges,
V-sights and other small, difficult-to-hit targets, and with success.
I have seen film footage similar to that which you describe. However, I was
given the understanding that these scenes represent salvoing of bombs after
both a primary and secondary target could not be sucessfully bomarded by
"visual" means (including "Mickey") due to cloud cover, navigational error,
etc.
Real precision in bombing is hard to obtain when dropping bombs "in trail",
as was the procedure in WWII. Only when the combatants began developing and
deploying "smart" or guideable ordnance could such even be approximated.
Thanks for the post.
polo wrote in message <3788989...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
. >>major snip<<
John
>
> The USAAF was formally committed to "precision bombing", meaning a conscious
> attempt to limit civilian casualties caused by dropping bombs on legitimate
> military targets located in proximity to non-military institutions,
> including civilian housing.
Quite so, at first anyway, though not later. There were many U.S.A.A.F.
leaders who felt that the destabilizing effect of bombing civilian
population centers made them a priority target. Others disagreed. It's
an interesting chapter in development of our ultimate strategic bombing
philosophy, as best represented by Curtis LeMay.
Kenneth Werrell, a history prof at Radford University and former B-29
pilot has written most comprehensively on this in "Blankets of Fire"
(1996) Smithsonian Inst. Press, 350pp. While Werrell deals principally
with U.S. bombers over Japan, much is also devoted to the European
Theatre as precursor. He also has an earlier book on the ETO bombings
per se, (his Ph.D. thesis I think).
Werrell's book is technically detailed and most thorough. Your post was
a good start on the subject but there's much, much more to it.
Regards,
John Brookes