• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The real 9/11: Allies kill 12,300 German civilians in 1944

Graffias

Rogue
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
924
Reaction score
309
Location
Midwest U.S
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Luisenplatz_Darmstadt_1944.jpg


A look at the real 9/11, of 9/11/44, where the Royal Air Force carried out the premeditated mass murder of 12,300 German civilians (60,000+ homeless) at Darmstadt. Darmstadt was of no industrial importance and chosen because the wooden houses made easy targets and were more flammable. An act of extreme savagery indeed.
 
Luisenplatz_Darmstadt_1944.jpg


A look at the real 9/11, of 9/11/44, where the Royal Air Force carried out the premeditated mass murder of 12,300 German civilians (60,000+ homeless) at Darmstadt. Darmstadt was of no industrial importance and chosen because the wooden houses made easy targets and were more flammable. An act of extreme savagery indeed.

Hitler learned a valuable lesson in the end. Don't start trouble, won't be none. It's too bad that we no longer fight wars to win them. Now we wage sanitized wars with rules of engagement that put our soldiers in unnecessary peril.
 
Luisenplatz_Darmstadt_1944.jpg


A look at the real 9/11, of 9/11/44, where the Royal Air Force carried out the premeditated mass murder of 12,300 German civilians (60,000+ homeless) at Darmstadt. Darmstadt was of no industrial importance and chosen because the wooden houses made easy targets and were more flammable. An act of extreme savagery indeed.

Gosh. One might conclude from your post that you have a real affinity for Nazis. Are you similarly outraged by the V-1 and V-2 attacks on Rotterdam and London, where no attempt at all was made to target anything except the city?

Pre-meditated mass murder? Give me a frickin' break. You need to stop reading those nasty websites with the swastikas on the top.
 
Hitler learned a valuable lesson in the end. Don't start trouble, won't be none. It's too bad that we no longer fight wars to win them. Now we wage sanitized wars with rules of engagement that put our soldiers in unnecessary peril.

At that stage, when Germany was inevitably going to lose the war, Hitler was of the opinion that the German people had been proved to be the weaker nation and should thus be exterminated. Therefore, such militarily senseless raids on civilians were quite consistent with Hitler's thinking, even if they did not amount to an extermination of the German people. Hitler, at that point, would have wanted a lot more raids like that.
 
At that stage, when Germany was inevitably going to lose the war, Hitler was of the opinion that the German people had been proved to be the weaker nation and should thus be exterminated. Therefore, such militarily senseless raids on civilians were quite consistent with Hitler's thinking, even if they did not amount to an extermination of the German people. Hitler, at that point, would have wanted a lot more raids like that.

Like Hitler was a Raskolnikov, hahaha.

Crime and Punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Gosh. One might conclude from your post that you have a real affinity for Nazis.
The bombs didn't distinguished between nazis and non-nazis.

Are you similarly outraged by the V-1 and V-2 attacks on Rotterdam and London, where no attempt at all was made to target anything except the city?
Why wouldn't he be?
 
Pre-meditated mass murder? Give me a frickin' break. You need to stop reading those nasty websites with the swastikas on the top.

Your argument would be that area bombing of civilian population centers isn't an act of pre-meditated mass murder?
 
Gosh. One might conclude from your post that you have a real affinity for Nazis.

Of course he does. Many of us refer to him as "our little Goebbels" .

And his avatar is from the movie "The Wall", a symbol much to the chagrin of Pink Floyd themselves has been adopted by modern neo-Nazis as their own.

nk_shock_thewall_rally.jpg


A great many years ago I had a patch of this. But I threw it out over a decade ago when I found it that skinheads were using it. I did not want anybody thinking my approval of an album and movie meant I supported those assholes.
 
Luisenplatz_Darmstadt_1944.jpg


A look at the real 9/11, of 9/11/44, where the Royal Air Force carried out the premeditated mass murder of 12,300 German civilians (60,000+ homeless) at Darmstadt. Darmstadt was of no industrial importance and chosen because the wooden houses made easy targets and were more flammable. An act of extreme savagery indeed.

Darmstadt is the place where I was born, and Graffias, it needs to be hammered into your nazi brain that noone here is interested in your sympathy. Can you at least have the decency to stop using the death of civilians to promote your disgusting agenda?
 
Last edited:
Of course he does. Many of us refer to him as "our little Goebbels" .
And his avatar is from the movie "The Wall", a symbol much to the chagrin of Pink Floyd themselves has been adopted by modern neo-Nazis as their own.
nk_shock_thewall_rally.jpg

A great many years ago I had a patch of this. But I threw it out over a decade ago when I found it that skinheads were using it. I did not want anybody thinking my approval of an album and movie meant I supported those assholes.

Thanks for this post, I wasn't aware of what the symbol meant. Using the allied bombings to promote a neo-nazi revisionist agenda is absolutely disgusting and intolerable and insults the memory of those who died in the bombings.

And I admit I should have known. What the hell is this:

AN AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALIST OPPOSED TO GLOBALISM, ZIONISM, AND FEMINISM, AND IN FAVOR OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS, A PALESTINIAN STATE, AND MEN'S RIGHTS!

I just didn't see it the last time I posted in this thread. Probably for the first time since I got into this forum, I will whole-heartedly agree with Wiggen on one point: this Graffias guy clearly has nazi sympathies.
 
Last edited:
The bombs didn't distinguished between nazis and non-nazis.


Why wouldn't he be?

Because this post, and others he has made, indicate he has a real soft spot for the National Socialist movement that controlled Germany in the '30's.
 
Your argument would be that area bombing of civilian population centers isn't an act of pre-meditated mass murder?

Not if those civilian population centers were also manufacturing centers for war materials. You do understand that this was a war for national survival, right? Or maybe you don't.
 
Not if those civilian population centers were also manufacturing centers for war materials. You do understand that this was a war for national survival, right? Or maybe you don't.

You do understand that population centers were bombed specifically because they were population centers, right?

Or maybe you don't.

Go read up on Giulio Douhet, Billy Mitchell, and (to a lesser extent) Hugh Trenchard and the development/evolution of strategic bombing theory during the interwar period.

The objective of area/terror bombing was to break the morale of the enemy by killing civilians and destroying their homes, jobs, and foodstuffs, nothing more, nothing less.

We know now that such a strategy isn't effective, and if the leaders of the great WWII powers had studied the effects of the strategic bombing that took place during the Spanish Civil War and the Second Sino-Japanese War they would have known in 1940 that terror bombing was a largely useless undertaking.

Rather than read, just download and listen to this podcast:

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-42---(BLITZ)-Logical-Insanity/

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Carlin. Area bombing is ineffective, Britain and the U.S. should have known it was ineffecitve prior to deliberately creating firestorms in major civilian population centers, but in retrospect and to not be anachronistic WWII occured in a different time, and a different place, between cultures that didn't know what we know now, and judging them by modern standards is pointless.
 
Last edited:
You do understand that population centers were bombed specifically because they were population centers, right?

We are talking about the 1940's you are aware, right?

At that time "precision bombing" pretty much meant that your bombs landed in the same county as your target. Even the best bombsight of the era (the Norden) was accurate only to an ideal of "2% of altitude".

That means that a perfect aimed and operated B-29 would have it's bombs drop within 2 kilometers of it's target simply because of issues with accuracy.

And this was the most accurate bombsight of the era!

There was no other way to attack such industrial facilities.
 
We are talking about the 1940's you are aware, right?

Sure.

And you're aware that bombing civilian population centers, because they were civilian population centers, and irrespective of bomb sight accuracy or any other congingency, was a planned strategy, right?

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.

The heads of the allied air "forces" (such as they were at the time) were all on board with bombing cities in order to kill civilians because they were of the mind that putting the hurt on civilians would hasten the end of the war.

Bombing cities was not a result of "we aren't accurate enough to avoid them".

It was a result of "let's target them and kill women and children indiscriminately".

They weren't appologizing or making excuses for it back then, I fail to see why you feel the need to make excuses for it, or explain it away, now.
 
So you believe that allied war planners sat down somewhere and decided that the way we would win world war two was to bomb civilians indiscriminately? Sorry, not buying it for a second. Ball bearing plants and weapons manufacturing facilities and synthetic fuel facilities were often located in major cities because - guess what - they needed people to work in those places and cities had people! Strange, I know, but them's the facts. Losses were so heavy among air crews that the notion that they would have wasted those trained air crews bombing non-essential targets is simply silly. Civilians died because A) bombing wasn't very accurate, and B) they tended to live where the targets were.

However, if you get comfort from believing that thousands of American and British aircrews were no better than the SS guards at concentration camps, go for it.
 
However, if you get comfort from believing that thousands of American and British aircrews were no better than the SS guards at concentration camps, go for it.

Of course they are! The SS were innocent schoolboys.

And don't believe all that holocaust nonsense either. All Jewish lies!

 
We are talking about the 1940's you are aware, right?

At that time "precision bombing" pretty much meant that your bombs landed in the same county as your target. Even the best bombsight of the era (the Norden) was accurate only to an ideal of "2% of altitude".

That means that a perfect aimed and operated B-29 would have it's bombs drop within 2 kilometers of it's target simply because of issues with accuracy.

And this was the most accurate bombsight of the era!

There was no other way to attack such industrial facilities.

I think parts of this discussion are based on wrong assumptions. British Air Marshall Arthur himself said the following about the bombing strategy:

The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.

On the American side you have people like USAAF General Anderson, referring to the bombing of militarily unimportant towns in 1945:

A note by US air force general Frederick Anderson to his press office notes that such operations were "not expected in itself to shorten the war ... However, it is expected that the fact that Germany was struck all over will be passed on, from father to son, thence to grandson; that a deterrent for the initiation of future wars will definitely result."

from here:

Allied bombers chose 'easy' German targets | UK news | The Guardian

It is important to note that especially after D-Day, many cities in Germany were not bombed because there was anything militarily valuable in there but simply because they were expected to (and did) burn well, especially when there were medieval town centers. In the case of Darmstadt, as in many other cities, the main industrial areas were not even hit. In this kind of bombing, the bombers would fly over a landmark in the city and spread out from there in a fan-like formation to spread first explosive bombs and then incendiary bombs across an area of the city which had been designated with fire risk maps and population density maps in order to maximize the damage to the civilian population. Darmstadt was a testing ground for that method of flattening cities and it was later applied to other cities in Germany and Japan.

Regarding the argument that the bombing accuracy was limited and therefore the carnage that was the bombing of Darmstadt was inevitable, it may apply to some bombings earlier in the war (when the German fighters still shot down every second allied bomber and therefore the bombers had to fly at night and in high altitude). However, in September 1944, the allies already had air superiority, they could basically do whatever they wanted. Precision bombings WERE possible at that stage of the war. And they were very successful. For example, bombing oil refineries led to German tanks on the Eastern front not being able to move anymore because they didn't have any fuel. Using their bombers to support the advancement of troops was also possible. Area attacks on cities, on the other hand, were not done despite the damage they would do to civilians, but because of it, at least at that stage of the war.

If you want to see a high level discussion between historians about the bombing of cities in WW2, here is one:
The Allied bombing of German cities in World War II was unjustifiable - YouTube

Note that all four panellists agree that the flattening of German cities into 1945 (raids for which Darmstadt had been the testing ground) was not justifiable.

A nice BBC documentary about the WW2 bombing of civilians, with Würzburg as an example for the militarily senseless bombing of residential areas, and an explanation of how targets were chosen.
Timewatch - Bombing Germany (BBC 2001) - YouTube

I don't think anyone here (possibly except for Graffias) would compare the atrocities of the allied air forces to those of the SS. And if the damage done to German civilians was inevitable for hitting military and industrial targets with the technology that was available, I would be the first one to justify those bombings in the context of WW2. But deliberately bombing the civilians for the reasons stated by Anderson, which is a fancy way of saying lets kill as many of those bastards as possible was indeed pre-meditated mass murder. And as such it should be judged. Where in the allied bombing campaign the line between legitimate strategy and simple mass murder was crossed is hard to decide, I would propose that it is crossed when civilians are explicitly designated as targets and their killing is developped and optimized in a scientific way. If you feel uncomfortable judging people from the allied side and prefer to assume that they would have acted both as morally and as effectively as possible, that's okay, but one point I find important: Today, i.e. at a time when nato countries like to "take responsibility on security and stability issues", the deliberate bombing of civilians should clearly be on the list of things which should not have happened and should never happen again. As a German, I do not want to be part of an alliance which considers punishing civilian populations for their evil regimes to be a justifiable thing to do.
 
Last edited:
So you believe that allied war planners sat down somewhere and decided that the way we would win world war two was to bomb civilians indiscriminately? Sorry, not buying it for a second.

This isn't a matter of "buying it" or not "buying it".

It's a matter of historical accuracy.

Did Allied war planners deliberately target German and Japanese civilian populations?

Yes, they did.

Simple.

If you disagree then you need to go crack a book.

However, if you get comfort from believing that thousands of American and British aircrews were no better than the SS guards at concentration camps, go for it.

LOL

If you think a comment like this has any place in a serious discussion of history then you have the emotional maturity of a third grader.
 
This isn't a matter of "buying it" or not "buying it".

It's a matter of historical accuracy.

Did Allied war planners deliberately target German and Japanese civilian populations?

Yes, they did.

Simple.

And the Italian, German and Japanese war planners did the exact same thing.

Simple.

Both sides were doing the exact same things. And there is no question that both the Japanese and Germans started this targeting of civilian population centers, the Allies were simply returning the favor.

While there were incidents on both sides early in the war (including the attack on Freiburg Germany which the Nazi's claimed was an attack on a German city by English bombers - however it was really some lost German bombers who thought they were attacking an airfield in France). But the first widespread bomber attack on civilians was the 1940 Rotterdam Blitz, when German bombers purposefully attacked and leveled the city of Rotterdam.

Then 2 months later the Battle of Britain began, and soon all restrictions for bombing went out the window. Yet here you are, trying to say that the nations that started such practices are to be forgiven, and the other side should be punished.

Amazing, simply amazing.

Oh, and here is a reference, sine I am sure some will call me a liar for general principals:

For the German high command things in the Netherlands didn’t go as planned.

They need to set their forces free of combat with the Dutch was high, the units are desperately needed in the south of the Netherlands to participate in the attack on Belgium and France.
Therefore an ultimatum was given to Dutch on the 14th of May 1940, 2 days behind schedule. Surrender or feel the consequences.

The ninety Heinkel bombers of the Kampfgeschwader 54 (combat group) flew in tight formation on the city of Rotterdam. The attack only lasted 15 minutes but the outcome was devastating.
They dropped 97.000 kilo of bombs right in the city centre of Rotterdam. The city burned like crazy.
Rotterdam lost more than 800 citizens in the attack, 24.000 houses were destroyed, 70 schools, 21 churches, 1200 company buildings, 4 hospitals and more than 80.000 people lost a roof above their heads.

http://www.ww2-landmarkscout.com/2013/04/rotterdam-blitz-city-on-fire-netherlands.html
 
Last edited:
Yet here you are, trying to say that the nations that started such practices are to be forgiven, and the other side should be punished. Amazing, simply amazing.

Please quote me saying that Germany and Japan should be forgiven and that the United States and/or Britain should be punished.

Fact is, I've said nothing of the sort so you'd just be wasting your time hunting for that quote.

We can discuss America's motivation for commiting war crimes if you'd like, and I'd be willing to make value judgements of such strategies and their outcome.

But so far I've done neither of those things.

I've simply made factually accurate statements free of any speculation or evaluation.

Oh, and here is a reference, sine I am sure some will call me a liar for general principals

Not me.

Japan was commiting war crimes as early as 1937 and Germany followed closely behind them in 1939.

There's no doubt in the historic record that the Axis were commiting war crimes before the Allies.
 
Last edited:
So the bombing of London was what? Mainly citizens killed, mainly civilian homes and businesses destroyed.
Tit for tat. Get over it.
 
This isn't a matter of "buying it" or not "buying it".

It's a matter of historical accuracy.

Did Allied war planners deliberately target German and Japanese civilian populations?

Yes, they did.

Simple.

If you disagree then you need to go crack a book.



LOL

If you think a comment like this has any place in a serious discussion of history then you have the emotional maturity of a third grader.

Which would match your knowledge of history. You are an example of the revisionist bull**** that passes for history these days. World War II - Hey, we were just as bad as the Nazis and we deliberately set about to murder civilians. Heard it all before, and it was bull**** then and its bull**** now.
 
Back
Top Bottom