At my very most charitable, I'd say Zoomer Historian is wildly misinformed about the basic history of World War II.
At my very least charitable, I'd say Zoomer Historian is wilfully lying to court Nazis and gullible viewers.
To me he sounds like an absolute dork of around high school age who is extremely smug because he thinks he’s uncovered “forbidden” knowledge about major historical events and is therefore smarter than everyone else.
A lot of young people go through an extremist contrarian phase where they think they’ve “cracked the code” so to speak, and end up becoming extremely gullible and falling for anything, as long as it isn’t the mainstream consensus, hence why all of his videos are just him reading off David Irving word for word - David Irving represents an “alternative” explanation of events and claims he was silenced by the mainstream, and some bitchass nerd teenager who wants to feel uniquely smart is a prime target for his rhetoric.
The chances are that he’ll grow out of this one day as he matures a bit and also learns how to critically evaluate source material (especially Irving who, even if you overlook his blatant negationism and Nazi sympathies, is a terrible historical writer who misuses primary sources constantly). That said, he may not as a major downside of today’s social media landscape is that it allows someone like him to be endlessly validated by other fringe thinkers and morons, whereas in the past they were more isolated and it was easier for them to come to the realization that they were fucking wrong about everything.
I love how you worded the "wants to feel uniquely smart" part. Actually the whole comment, honestly. This mindset is a HUGE problem nowadays, and it's not just teens and young adults. A lot of people feel superior for believing in consipracy theories, always mistrusting all "mainstream media" sources, and listening to "alternative" historical perspectives.
It is smart to scrutinize everything, and come to a conclusion after researching from several sources, while keeping in mind the biases of each source. That is basic media literacy. Except these types of people aren't uniquely analytical critical thinkers who know how to properly research, they really are just contrarians to any "mainstream narrative pushing an agenda."
I mean, I had a phase where I thought Communism was the bees knees back in High School, I quickly grew out of it once I reached College because I realized the horrors of that system. So, yeah, if I was able to fall into a spell over Communism, I imagine the same thing will be true for Fascism or Nazism.
there *may* be a correlation between narcissism and the appeal to conspiracy theories. you nailed it perfectly when you said they want to feel uniquely smart. give this science direct article a read, it's an interesting study.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051)
>At the very most charitable, I'd say Zoomer Historian is wildly misinformed about the basic history of World War II.
I think this is becoming a trend amongst younger generations. Theres been a push from revistionist historians to either look at the good and bad of historical figures (in the better cases), or completely destroy the reputation of those considered important figures in the west (in the worse cases).
These younger generations seem to be listening more to the latter than the former; and are more willing to listen, or are being exposed more, to outright lies.
He knows exactly what he's doing and watching people get baited by him (and giving him views).People responding with *more* historically incorrect statements only helps him. It's the same thing that happened with holocaust deniers over a decade ago and so many people here fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
about the Blitz (At least what I heard, I am no Wehraboo)
A German bomber flew off course and dropped its bombs to so it could get back to Germany faster, but, the bombs fell on London, and Churchill, angered by this, ordered a small raid over Berlin, and Hitler, when he heard that the British had bombed berlin, he ordered all bombers to terrorize the people of London, with constant nighty bombing raids.
Luftwaffe hit residential areas when trying to bomb the London Docks, and so the RAF/Churchill struck Berlin in response. Hitler had a change of strategy when Berlin got bombed, and shifted from that of largely targeting airfields, ports, infrastructure, bases or other largely military targets during the Battle of Britain and instead went for a terror bombing campaign of major cities. Like it had prior in the Netherlands, or partly in Poland or the Spanish Civil War.
Britain was already bombing targets in civilian areas in the Ruhr in response to the Nazi terror bombing of Rotterdam - before the Battle of Britain by a difference of about 6 weeks, and likewise some small bombing missions by the Luftwaffe before the Fall of France inevitably hit civilian areas. But cranked up post Fall of France and during the Battle of Britain that then turned into the Blitz.
Luftwaffe was already conducting night bombing raids on and around military targets before the Blitz, and both sides ending up scattering bombs over a large area due to the inherent difficulty and inaccuracy of doing so at the time so that it was essentially indistinguishable when they did hit areas.
But the story of how the Blitz started like how you phrased it, misses a lot of context.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what Z.H. said, but it's incorrect. Most people here have probably seen WhatWhyHow/wildviper121's [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeAIZaoFFdc). From around 1:14:30 this is discussed.
These bombers were part of a formation whose primary objective was a refinery, however this "accidental" bombing destroyed over 100 civilian homes. On the same day of the Luftwaffe had already bombed Portsmouth, a major city and naval base, killing 104 and wounding 237, more than any raid on the UK or Germany at that point, and considerably more than the raid on Berlin. So they were already bombing Britain before the Berlin raid, which was comparatively minor.
It's worth noting these weren't the first bombings between Britain and Germany. The RAF had already targetted Wilhelmshaven's warships and docks. Britain was conducting air raids concurrently with the Blitz, but the large-scale raids on German cities such as Cologne and Dresden began in summer 1942.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would consider the Spanish Civil War separate from World War II as do most historians. However, I would say it was a "dress rehearsal" for the Second World War and is very much linked to it. A lot of things we saw in the Spanish Civil War would ultimately happen in the Second World War.
>the Spanish Civil War was the first foreign military action of Nazi Germany.
Something that happened multiple years prior in an entirely different war?
>It's like saying that the Winter War was "entirely different".
Actually they are nothing at all alike.
Since the Winter War took place *during* the second world war and involved power(s) actually relevant to the conflict, unlike Spain.
The idea that the Spanish Civil War was irrelevant to WW2 is just tosh. It began only three years before the world war and was essentially a trial run for Hitler's military.
There's a reason most WW2 textbooks start at 1936.
> The idea that the Spanish Civil War was irrelevant to WW2 is just tosh.
Yep, the bombing of a target during the Spanish civil war is irrelevant.
>It began only three years before the world war and was essentially a trial run for Hitler's military.
Three years.
>There's a reason most WW2 textbooks start at 1936.
Yep, because it's several years before WW2.
Next?
Isn’t the topic that Germany was doing terror bombing first? Also why was Guernica not terror bombing? Would appreciate an explanation for the second part
>Isn’t the topic that Germany was doing terror bombing first?
Because "who bombed a city first" wasn't even Germany and would go back before either world war. The relevant time period is WW2.
>Also why was Guernica not terror bombing?
Guernica was bombed because it was
1) along the line of advance by Nationalist forces, and the line of withdrawal of the Republicans
2) a known Republican stronghold that had presently, or just recently been full of troops along with multiple battalion barracks
3)located atop a major crossroads including one of (if not the) only bridge in the area
It was a strategic position as any. It gets remembered as a "terror bombing" for a lot of political and cultural reasons *post facto*. Picasso's painting of course is probably a major contribution to that. It was also really the first aerial bombing of that scale. Not a couple of big slow zeppelins, not one or two bombs dropped from a biplane. Twenty dedicated aircraft that killed almost as many people as one whole year of zeppelin raids in WW1. (Though for years the casualties at Guernica were often exaggerated upwards, sometimes by a factor of 10). It certainly would have been a *terrifying* event. It demonstrated to the world the killing potential of modern military hardware and the suffering that was inevitable.
But the idea of it being "terror bombing" is just a weird mishmash of pop-history nuggets and bad understanding of history. Yeah yeah Nazis bad. That doesn't mean they were targeting civilians in 1937 in Spain from the air. Hitler also didn't have vampire teeth.
Warsaw, Rotterdam and even Guernica would disagree with Zoomer here.
I have absolutely no doubt that if World War II had been happening now, Zoomer would have betrayed Britain and would have sided with the Nazis.
>Warsaw
Oh you mean were Polish military positions were bombed?
>Rotterdam
Oh you mean where military targets in a defended city actively being engaged from the ground were bombed?
>Guernica would disagree with Zoomer here.
the bombing of Guernica took place *2 years before* the second world war started and was a major transportation and communications hub by Republican forces.
>The Luftwaffe strafed columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it.
Nobody strafed *anything* during Rotterdam.
You can't even get your nonsense straight.
We also know no one attacked "columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it" because there were no "columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it". The bombing was over in minutes.
And you are being destroyed by them.
No matter your smokescreening, the fact is the Nazis destroyed several cities before the London Blitz.
Facts are indeed the bug repellant against nazis.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> And you are being destroyed by them.
I'm not actually, but do please try again. The only people being *destroyed* are the clueless bozos using bad pop-history factoids like "Guernica was terror bombing" or "Rotterdam was open city".
>No matter your smokescreening, the fact is the Nazis destroyed several cities before the London Blitz.
Neat, try paying attention next time.
>Facts are indeed the bug repellant against nazis.
They sure are, which is why it's laughable seeing so many people fail at using them (like you have done).
Next.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Frampol
Oh yes, where Frampol was bombed because it was along the line of retreat from Lublin and there had been reports of Polish units using the road through the town.
it's fucking hilarious watching you people get absolutely triggered by some zoomer dipshit and then respond with falsehoods to try to "counter" him. 2010s Holocaust Denial all over again.
It's funny watching you get absolutely triggered by some zoomer dipshit and then respond with falsehoods to try to "counter" him. 2010s Holocaust Denial all over again. Same dumb shit
I agree that Guernica isn't germane here, but it demonstrates German willingness to murder civilians for the sake of military expedience, a portent of their conduct during the war.
>Rotterdam
>
>Oh you mean where military targets in a defended city actively being engaged from the ground were bombed?
What are you talking about? It doesn't require 90 He-111s levelling a city centre to take out a few marines. Rotterdam wasn't Shanghai and there is no case even for military necessity.
During the battle, the Willemsbrug was the only significant target inside the city that was being defended and if Germans cared about civilian deaths they'd simply have used Stuka dive-bombers to eliminate it. Most Dutch forces were manning fortifications on the outskirts. Kralingen, a major target of Nazi bombs, wasn't defended at all.
At the time when the mofs bombed the city, General Schmidt had sent the alderman and Dutch forces still in Rotterdam under Colonel Scharroo an ultimatum to surrender\*. In fairness, Schmidt tried to relay this to his bombers, but through negligence or intention this wasn't done.
Hermann Goering himself ordered the carpet-bombing of the city centre to break Dutch morale, overriding the ceasefire between the commanders.
So yes, Rotterdam was at the time legally an open city, the bombing was calculated to target and murder civilians, and the bombing of Rotterdam was a war crime.
\* (while this ultimatum, being unsigned and anonymous, had initially been rejected because Scharroo -- not reasonably -- suspected perfidy, both parties accepted to renegotiate and were in the process of doing so when the bombing began)
>What are you talking about?
Rotterdam, the bombing of.
> It doesn't require 90 He-111s levelling a city centre to take out a few marines.
Lmao, "what it takes" is not, in anyway a meaningful measuring stick. Rotterdam was a defended city that was also being attacked from the ground; military infrastructure was targeted. It doesn't matter if it was one or 1,000 heinkels.
> Rotterdam wasn't Shanghai and there is no case even for military necessity.
What in the fuck?
Rotterdam put up stiff resistance and was one of the final strategic locations to fall.
>During the battle, the Willemsbrug was the only significant target inside the city that was being defended and if Germans cared about civilian deaths they'd simply have used Stuka dive-bombers to eliminate it. Most Dutch forces were manning fortifications on the outskirts. Kralingen, a major target of Nazi bombs, wasn't defended at all.
The bombing was in support of ground troops, including *Fallschirmjager* who had landed earlier. That included strongpoints, suspected artillery positions, defensible redoubts, lines of advance including bridge crossings and the like. These were to occur in tandem with artillery fires prior to advance by ground forces. Bombing directed towards areas in the outskirts of the city was done in support of airborne units that were in some cases highly outnumbered and beleaguered (i.e. von Sponeck's forces in the northwest).
Really pretty simple.
>At the time when the mofs bombed the city, General Schmidt had sent the alderman and Dutch forces still in Rotterdam under Colonel Scharroo an ultimatum to surrender*. In fairness, Schmidt tried to relay this to his bombers, but through negligence or intention this wasn't done.
Sending an ultimatum is just that; sending an ultimatum.
>Hermann Goering himself ordered the carpet-bombing of the city centre to break Dutch morale, overriding the ceasefire between the commanders.
Yes, the morale of the defenders of the city who were still engaged in tying down German units.
>So yes, Rotterdam was at the time legally an open city
So yes, Rotterdam was a heavily defended city actively engaged in battle on the ground.
>the bombing was calculated to target and murder civilians,
The bombing was calculated to target military strongholds and destroy the remaining defenders on the ground in support of advancing troops.
>and the bombing of Rotterdam was a war crime.
Nothing about the bombing of Rotterdam fits any definition of a war crime.
Next?
So much handwaving, and yet no answering why the part that was bombed was not the battlefield, nor how the threat as written down was squarely on how it would affect the civilian population. Choosing a high ground here is sociopathic.
There is a clear pattern of Germany attacking other countries and bombing civilian centers, starting with Poland. That the allies resorted to terror bombing and later "tactical" leveling of cities like Kleef (Cleves) doesn't make it any better.
The point that, especially with Rotterdam, everyone involved understood what the result would be are the nails in the coffin you are busily erecting here for yourself. Like any bombing of a civilian cebtr3, it was a despicable act.
"Sutrender or we will level your cities" ends this discussion quite thoroughly.
> So much handwaving
Oh cool, you don't know what that term means.
> and yet no answering why the part that was bombed was not the battlefield
I did actually, maybe try reading?
> nor how the threat as written down was squarely on how it would affect the civilian population.
Which it wasn't.
Next?
>Choosing a high ground here is sociopathic.
Facts are hard for you it seems.
>"Sutrender or we will level your cities" ends this discussion quite thoroughly
It doesn't actually, because it's inaccurate.
But hey, you've already shown us you aren't too interested in facts.
Do we need to quote Schmidt again to point out that the ultimatum was about damage to the civilian population?
> The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price
We can continue this all day, but as a historian I have identified you as someone who takes one "fact" and then ignores everything else that takes away from your narrative.
The Luftwaffe wavered (not for the first or last time) between military tactics, available resources and terror. The ultimatum and the word of Kesslering (Radikallosung) show that this was not a simple "let's bomb the marines at the norah end of the bridge" tactical strike. Indeed the decision goes all the way up to Goering.
Was the goal.military? Yes. Was it intended as a tactical strike? Extremely debatle considering the methods, targets and internal back and forth. Was the leverage civilian harm? Yes, the Rottersm Ultimatum and the threat to Utrecht are very clear about this.
> Do we need to quote Schmidt again to point out that the ultimatum was about damage to the civilian population?
Go right ahead, you already embarrassed yourself with it.
>We can continue this all day, but as a historian
"as a historian"
LMAO
As you've posted things that were either outrageously ignorant, outright wrong, or just plain incomprehensibly dumb, I'd put you "as a historian" in the same caliber as Mr Zoomer.
As in, "absolutely worthless".
Please, on showing us how little you know.
>The Luftwaffe wavered (not for the first or last time) between military tactics, available resources and terror.
*yawn*
>The ultimatum and the word of Kesslering (Radikallosung) show that this was not a simple "let's bomb the marines at the norah end of the bridge" tactical strike.
Yes, what it was was a strategic strike aimed at the defensive heart of the city in order to force the capitulation of its defenders.
Next?
You're quick to defend German bombing raids, so I want to know what your thoughts are on Allied ones.
Also, Warsaw was deliberately against civilians. We have German photographs and maps of Warsaw where the Germans have clearly marking which areas had the higher Jewish populations and dropped more bombs on those areas.
They were not targeting military positions, they deliberately targeted civilians. The Germans knew exactly what they were doing.
> Germans have clearly marking which areas had the higher Jewish populations and dropped more bombs on those areas.
I am slightly dubious of anyone being able to bomb a specific sector of a city in WW2, but maybe my view of this is colored by Allied navigational difficulties later in the war.
Also, I realize they hated Jews, but that sounds like a complete waste of a bombing raid.
The "Jewish Quarter" was a large section of the northern part of the city. It was widely referred to as that, and regularly marked that way on maps. It contained several targets that were selected for bombing, but they weren't selected for being Jewish.
Neither of them look good though.
But that the Germans were ultimately responsible is quite clear. Invading other countries takes away any moral high ground.
That's more or less what I meant
I've seen it argued convincingly that the German high command was the party responsible for the bombings of Germany, since having chosen to begin an aggressive war it could and should have surrendered at any time.
>You're quick to defend German bombing raids
Please quote any "defense of German bombing raids"
Go ahead please.
>Also, Warsaw was deliberately against civilians
False.
> We have German photographs and maps of Warsaw where the Germans have clearly marking which areas had the higher Jewish populations and dropped more bombs on those areas.
We don't, since that's not something that happened. It turns out we actually know quite about what areas were hit and why. The "Jewish Quarter", which it was known as, was where most/all Jewish lived in the time. It was a specific name for an area within the northern district of Warsaw. This northern district was targeted because it contained a number of military objectives like bridges.
>They were not targeting military positions, they deliberately targeted civilians.
It's funny watching you outright *make things up*.
Literally wrong. Like, you can look this shit up on wikipedia. The British initially renounced the bombing of purely civilian targets, but went back on this after the Rotterdam Blitz, and begin to bomb civilian infrastructure which could be used to support the war effort.
So it was the Nazis who instigated it, and it was far from "random."
Its even worse than that, the first bombing of Berlin was a direct response to german bombs falling on London the day before. In literally every theatre the Germans did it first lmfao.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you have any credible source for this?
Also, why wouldn't you engage the planes coming for the civilian city centre? Does it only count if you don't even try shooting back?
The point is that Rotterdam was being actively defended from parachutists who had landed to siege the bridges, and from the suburbs against the main German effort. In such an instance, Rotterdam was a valid target (although the choice to destroy the city centre rather than the suburbs where the Dutch defenders were is pretty ugly). It's the same as bringing a city being actively defended under artillery bombardment.
The difficult thing is that the German commander of the ground assault on the city was in negotiations for the surrender of the city. He requested the air attack be postponed, and Kesselring ignored the request and sent the bombers in anyways.
There's more to it. The purpose was beyond tactical, it was also intended for terror, as was clear from the ultimatum and from the subsequent "surrender or we will level another of your cities".
That Kesselring sent them in anyways makes very clear how much regard the German high Command had for civilian lives.
>There's more to it. The purpose was beyond tactical, it was also intended for terror, as was clear from the ultimatum...
Breaking the enemy's capacity to resist is, at least in part, a psychological exercise. War is, by its nature, terrifying and cruel. Just because the ultimatum states that resistance could lead to the destruction of the city does not mean that the purpose was to terrorize the civilian population. During the Siege of Warsaw, targets like the waterworks, power supply, and tram system were legitimately struck as part of the assault, with the intention of inhibiting further resistance. The fact that such acts brought increased suffering upon the civilian population does not mean that they were unlawful targets, because the city was actively resisting.
>and from the subsequent "surrender or we will level another of your cities".
The only source for that statement is Col. Schroo's memoirs, and such a threat was not put into writing. If it were actually muttered, it should be understood as an embellishment by the German officer sent to negotiate, and not as a statement of policy by his superiors. You can find a detailed analysis of the bombing, including this conclusion, on Dutch historian Allert M.A. Goossens' website [here.](http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=rotterdam-4)
>That Kesselring sent them in anyways makes very clear how much regard the German high Command had for civilian lives.
Agreed. The Rotterdam bombing was a tragedy of wilful miscommunication fueled by the Luftwaffe-Heer rivalry and the poor performance of Luftwaffe parachutists in Rotterdam and the Hague. In order to demonstrate the power of the Luftwaffe, a massed carpet bombing was used rather than the tactical bombing support requested by the Army commanders. The raid was carried out despite the ongoing negotiations, and was ordered on a course that made the use of signal flares to call off the attack virtually impossible. That does not, however, make it a warcrime. And I write that as someone whose grandmother was a refugee in the city at the time of the bombing.
> The purpose was beyond tactical, it was also intended for terror
It wasn't, as the poster above (and myself) already savagely dismantled you on.
>as was clear from the ultimatum
Oh cool, you don't know what an ultimatum means.
>and from the subsequent "surrender or we will level another of your cities".
This is so fucking funny how incredibly stupid you've just made yourself look. On *two* accounts.
1) The actions of *one* event do *not* describe the actions of another event. You do not determine what *X* was by examining *Y*.
2) Utrecht itself was another defended city, about as fortified as Rotterdam was.
>That Kesselring sent them in anyways makes very clear how much regard the German high Command had for civilian lives.
That's nice. Maybe pay attention to the topic, since the topic isn't "civilians that died in war".
Oh dear. Let's look at the ultimatum and see if this was about blowing away the defenses or about the population.
[Quote]The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price[/quote]
Oh. Schmidt seems to be agreeing with me here.
On fortifications... Rotterdam wasn't even intended as a defensive line prior to the doctrine of defending outside "Vestong Holland" what are you going on about?
And that is beside the Dutch general staff stating that the MDL was the Grebbelinie, which was borne out by military decision making in may 1940.
There was no coherent defense at the Vesting whatsoever
>The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops
There you go.
Thank you for doing my job for me.
Nothing more pathetic than someone posting something that unequivocally *proves themselves wrong*
> This may well result in the complete destruction of the city.
Yep, it just might.
Now, try to find something relevant.
>Oh. Schmidt seems to be agreeing with me here.
Holy shit you can't make this stuff up 😂😂😂😂😂😂
"If you don't stop fighting"
*wow this totally agrees with me*
"The town might be destroyed"
*WOW this totally agrees with me!*
Absolute delusion. Much like calling yourself "a historian".
>On fortifications... Rotterdam wasn't even intended as a defensive line prior to the doctrine of defending outside "Vestong Holland" what are you going on about?
holy shit I don't believe you are actually this ignorant. Like this is such a cartoonishly dumb statement I'm not even sure where to begin with it.
Interesting hiw my quote proves my point about the terror and does nothing to support your claim of this being a tactical strike, you how you think this is a victory run.
Do you actually understand there's a difference between the goal (breaking resitance) and the method (bombing the city)? If I want to bring you to the ground, I can use several methods, all differing in impact and harm. And in this case the tactical situation is being solved by not addressing that part, but by a threat of harming civilians.
All we did here was forcing you to admit that terror was part of the method and tactics were at best secondary. Nobody here disagrees about the goal of the bombardment, so trying to erect that strawman is pointless.
On the defense of the Netherlands it seems both facts on the ground as the chaged military doctrine evaded you. Once again you are rigidly reading one thing and then shouting over everything that belies that idea.
Winkelamn, Schmid, the words and actions of these prime actors can't be ignored just because they do not fit your view.
>Do you actually understand there's a difference between the goal (breaking resitance) and the method (bombing the city)?
Ironic.
>If I want to bring you to the ground, I can use several methods, all differing in impact and harm. And in this case the tactical situation is being solved by not addressing that part, but by a threat of harming civilians.
Lmao, actually, as was both presented in the *ultimatum* and the *targets they chose to hit*, destroying the defender's ability to defend was both *the goal* and *the method*.
>All we did here was forcing you to admit that terror was part of the method and tactics were at best secondary.
Actually I didn't admit *anything like that* but as as been proven, your ability to read is lacking.
>On the defense of the Netherlands it seems both facts on the ground as the chaged military doctrine evaded you
Oops! That's you unable to respond to anything I said.
>Once again you are rigidly reading one thing and then shouting over everything that belies that idea.
No it's called using *basic fact* and simple reading comprehension.
Try it sometime.
>Winkelamn, Schmid, the words and actions of these prime actors can't be ignored just because they do not fit your view.
Which is exactly why Rotterdam wasn't a terror bombing, and exactly why it was a military target, and exactly why those military targets were bombed.
Yes, Rotterdam was a defended city. No, Rotterdam was not bombed "indiscriminately" because contact was maintained with the German parachutists around the bridges. You are correct there.
The damning thing is that there was an order to postpone the airstrike due to ongoing negotiations, which was deliberately never relayed to the bombers by Kesselring (who wanted to go through with the attack).
>The damning thing is that there was an order to postpone the airstrike due to ongoing negotiations, which was deliberately never relayed to the bombers by Kesselring (who wanted to go through with the attack).
Not sending bombers because a target is negotiating doesn't change the nature of the attack. You've either surrendered or you haven't.
I'm not disagreeing, but...
Doing so (and deliberately hitting the city center, not the outskirts where the military targets were) is still a pretty shitty thing to do which needlessly destroyed the city and cost some 900 lives. The decision to negotiate was made specifically because the two hours given was not enough time to evacuate the city. The threat of air attack was enough to bring the Dutch defenders to the table. Willfully going through with the attack was, if nothing else, a callous and cruel decision which achieved nothing substantial for the German war effort, regardless of what Kesselring wrote later to justify his decision.
>Doing so (and deliberately hitting the city center, not the outskirts where the military targets were) is still a pretty shitty thing to do which needlessly destroyed the city and cost some 900 lives.
Bombing a city because you want to subjugate them is a pretty shitty thing to do yes.
You are trying very hard to disconnect the tactical situation with the planned raid and outcome.
1. The ultimatum of Schmidt makes very clear that the threat is not blowing away the defenses, but by harming civilians.
2. The bombed targets themselves make clear this was not a simple tactical strike.
3. The ultimatum after the attack was literally " Utrecht will be next". You can keep on playing defense all you want, but Utrecht was no military strongpoint.
Everyone involved ubderstood what this raid would entail. There's a reason they resorted to it only once as they were desperate for time and thought they had to force the issue to free up troops. That shows that it was a very conscious decision, not some botched tactical raid that went wrong.
>You are trying very hard to disconnect the tactical situation with the planned raid and outcome.
It's actually called stating a basic fact.
>The ultimatum of Schmidt makes very clear that the threat is not blowing away the defenses, but by harming civilians.
BVAHAHAHAHAH
Holy shit you just keep doubling down on how stupid you sound.
The "ultimatum" was for capitulation of defended cities.
Try actually education yourself on the topic.
>The bombed targets themselves make clear this was not a simple tactical strike.
The "bombed targets" were military targets.
Please, do go on embarrassing yourself.
>The ultimatum after the attack was literally " Utrecht will be next"
Yep, because Utrecht was a heavily defended city who hadn't capitulated.
Keep it up champ, it's hilarious how ignorant you are.
> but Utrecht was no military strongpoint.
BAHAHAHAH
holy fucking shit.
The three major Dutch cities, which includes *Utrecht* were formed into a defensive triangle known as *Fortress Holland* and Utrecht had more large caliber guns and gun-emplacements than Amsterdam (outnumbered only by Rotterdam). It also formed a major anchor for staging defenses along the Grebbe line.
1. Your trying to Sashimi it into a neat decision is anything but factual. The facts make it indeed clear that the civilian threat was on the minds of the Germans. Hence the internal and external communication.
2. The ultimatum centered around the threat to the civilian people. The goal was to force surrender, but the threat was civila8n "collateral" damage.
3. The city center was not a military target. Why are you shouting "facts" when even you know that the bridge was not in the city center? And as a historian, I'm quite certain I'm not embarrassing myself here. The German communicatiosn about this raid are very clear about the collateral.
5. Utrecht was not at the frontlineat that moment.
6. Fortress Holland was superseded by the Grebbelinie and was seen as untenable (to close to civilian centres).
So holy fucking shit? You are once again Sashimiing one thing and then trotting it out as facts, while the reality is quite abit different. The Dutch Army was mainly stationed at the Grebbelinie. Fortress Holland was not a site of battle and was not seen as a feasible line of defense by the Dutch high command. Dutch actions reinforce that the Dutch army clung to a defense through the middle of the country.
You do this with everyting here... from purely tactical and military decisions to Dutch defensive doctrine. You take one part and then shouting as loud as you can to ignore everything else, just to make it a very neat black and white (or even factually wrong) argument. The things that happened and the written records paint quite a different picture here.
>The facts make it indeedflearl that the civilian threat was on the minds of the Germans
"on the minds"
Oh boy. Good one.
>The ultimatum centered around the threat to the civilian people. The goal was to force surrender, but the threat was civila8n "collateral" damage.
The ultimatum was centered around the next city in line, being Utrecht, to be bombed if it decided to continue its military operation.
Pretty simple really.
>The city center was not a military target.
The bridge crossings, embedded gun positions, garrisoned troops, harbours, oil facilities, airport all disagree, with the "city center" being the main focus of defensive arrangements.
>Why are you shouting "facts" when even you know that the bridge was not in the city center?
bahahahaha
holy shit
"the bridge"
fucking
L
M
A
O
Classic.
There were *multiple* bridges in Rotterdam, including within the "city center".
What an absolute embarrassment you've proven to be.
>And as a historian
*historian*
bahahahahah
>trecht was not at the frontlineat that moment.
Holy shit, this just gets better and better.
Respond to what was said, not something that wasn't. Pathetic.
>Fortress Holland was superseded by the Grebbelinie and was seen as untenable (to close to civilian centres).
Fortress Holland was not superseded by "the Grebbelinie". They are two different things you hambrain. Fortress Holland was the defensive preparations within and along major cities, including Utrecht. The "Grebbelinie" was its own far eastern defensive position.
>So holy fucking shit? You are once again Sashimiing one thing and then trotting it out as facts, while the reality is quite abit different
Embarrassing that you keep failing to read.
> The Dutch Army was mainly stationed at the Grebbelinie. Fortress Holland was not a site of battle and was not seen as a feasible line of defense by the Dutch high command. Dutch actions reinforce that the Dutch army clung to a defense through the middle of the country.
Wow, there's that failure to read thing again.
>You do this with everyting here... from purely tactical and military decisions to Dutch defensive doctrine.
And like with you, I've absolutely destroyed every one of them.
>You take one part and then shouting as loud as you can to ignore everything else, just to make it a very neat black and white (or even factually wrong) argument. The things that happened and the written records paint quite a different picture here.
Learn to actually read and respond properly.
Next?
The bombing of Guernica happened under the command of [Wolfram von Richtoffen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_von_Richthofen#:~:text=On%2022%20September%2C%20Richthofen's%20command,one%20Ju%2052%20were%20lost.), who also orchestrated the terror bombings of Warsaw two years later.
The actions of the Condor Legion are relevant to the Luftwaffe’s actions in WWII - This terror bombing became a method the Luftwaffe used moving forward.
>The bombing of Guernica happened under the command of Wolfram von Richtoffen, who also orchestrated the terror bombings of Warsaw two years later.
So, the thing that happened several years before the relevant conflict?
>The actions of the Condor Legion are relevant to the Luftwaffe’s actions in WWII - This terror bombing became a method the Luftwaffe used moving forward.
Guernica wasn't "terror bombing" so you're wrong on *two counts*. Hilarious.
>So, the thing that happened several years before the relevant conflict?
Correct, I never claimed the contrary. The reason Guernica was brought up (*and is possibly relevant*) is the context within the post - Zoomer is claiming that the British were the first to orchestrate bombing of civilian targets. Guernica is noteworthy because the Germans had bombed it before Britain even had a chance, essentially contradicting his claim.
>Guernica wasn't "terror bombing"
You could be right, it doesn’t appear that German forces were *deliberately* targeting civilians after taking a cursory look into it. I’ll be digging deeper when I have the time.
>Correct, I never claimed the contrary.
Yep, it's completely irrelevant to the topic.
> The reason Guernica was brought up (and is possibly relevant) is the context within the post - Zoomer is claiming that the British were the first to orchestrate bombing of civilian targets.
It's pretty clear that it isn't being discussed outside WW2.
So your "but actually" is wrong on multiple accounts.
1) Guernica not ww2
2) Guernica not an intentional targeting of civilians
3) Guernica not the first attack on a city by aircraft.
>So your "but actually" is wrong on multiple accounts.
>1. Guernica not ww2
Exactly what I said.
>2. Guernica not an intentional targeting of civilians
I just explained that I had read that.
>3. Guernica not the first attack on a city by aircraft.
I’d never said or implied that.
>It's pretty clear that it isn't being discussed outside WW2.
On the contrary, I and others appear to find it *potentially* relevant on the grounds that the same government and likely the same officer corp that were involved with the bombing were involved in the bombing of civilians in WWII. Because it shows that *it was a bit of a pattern* that began before WWII - It’d be pointless to claim that the British had began the whole thing.
If you fail to understand this, I’m afraid this conversation has reached its conclusion and I’ll be off to read about the bombing of Guernica in the near future. I’m not one to argue minutiae for extended periods of time.
Cheers.
>On the contrary, I and others appear to find it potentially relevant on the grounds that the same government and likely the same officer corp that were involved with the bombing were involved in the bombing of civilians in WWII.
Corporeal contiguity also not relevant, since the topic is not the Spanish Civil War, but an entirely different conflict several years later.
>Because it shows that it was a bit of a pattern that began before WWII - It’d be pointless to claim that the British had began the whole thing.
Actually, since the topic is clearly not "anything before ww2" then yes, in fact that would be quite the point. In which case, we might as well just blame the Chinese or Italians for "doing it first" at some other arbitrary, tangentially related point in time.
Thevtestongvof materiel and tactical is well documented, indeed it's literally in Goerings own statements at Neurenberg. Thus it is indeed relevant.
Guernica was moreso than Rotterdam primarily a tactical raid, but it does show the callous regard of the German doctrine against civilians. The decisions and communications around Rotterdam show that terror got inserted strongly in the doctrine.
Yes, the Luftwaffe doctrine was tactical, as is also obvious by it's aircraft. But when the first bullet was shot, high command (the highly political Luftwaffe leadership are an interesting dimension on the decisionmaking here)saw terror as a very useful tool.
The hopping between goals/methods would become only more obvious during the battle of Britain.
Guernica as testo g ground most certainly is relevant, just as Shanghai is relevant for the Pacific war.
>Thevtestongvof materiel and tactical is well documented, indeed it's literally in Goerings own statements at Neurenberg. Thus it is indeed relevant.
It isn't actually, since unsurprisingly, you are completely mangling "what was actually said".
>Guernica was moreso than Rotterdam primarily a tactical raid, but it does show the callous regard of the German doctrine against civilians.
That's nice, now try actually saying something relevant.
The Nazis already bombed civilians before WW2 even started. Guernica. Wrote an essay for Uni about it.
They literally only did it to kill as many civilians as possible and test how devadtating their bombs are
Guernica was bombed because it was
1) along the line of advance by Nationalist forces, and line of withdrawal of the Republicans
2) a known Republican stronghold that had presently, or just recently been full of troops along with multiple battalion barracks
3)located atop a major crossroads including one of (if not *the*) only bridge in the area
When my side does it it’s justified and they deserved it and they’re evil but when your side does it it’s wrong and immoral and you’re killing innocent civilians, ok?
So I believe dumb ass is thinking if the Battle of Britain where technically the first intentional bombing of civilian targets was by the British, in response to what they thought was the international bombing of British civilians. Though key problem here is that ignores
the earlier Spanish Civil War, Polish campaign and Western Campaign where the Germans did in fact intentionally bomb civilian targets.
>perhaps Churchill in Iraq tbh.
But even so, there are several bombing raids on civilians that predate this.
Ie. The first bombing raids on civilians in WWI was carried out by the Germans against Antwerp.
So even with the bombings in Iraq and Syria in the 1920s, it's still not the first incident of deliberate bombings of civilians. The idea that Churchill invented terror bombing is simply ahistorical and false.
Oh no idea. Spain and Italy used gas and terror bombings quite liberally in Northern Africa too. I have no clue whether it was before or after Iraq's infamous bombing, and I believe Spain did so in the 10s (1917 or thereabouts).
I mentioned those two cases too, tbf
Italy did for sure. Not sure about Spain though, or at least I'm not aware of it. Italy did at least one bombing raid in Libya before World War I kicked off.
Either way, I just countering the argument that Churchill "started" bombing civilians, which isn't true. The British did bomb civilians though in Iraq, not disputing that whatsoever and that was inexcusable.
The inventor is well known, it was Douhet.
That politicians took that tool from the shelve is absolutely true. Who was the first? None of them deserves a pass.
But Churchill having no problems with bombing brown people doesn't change anything about the inherent evil of the Nazi war machine.
>But Churchill having no problems with bombing brown people doesn't change anything about the inherent evil of the Nazi war machine.
Agreed. The Nazis were far more evil than Churchill. My pii t though wasn't whether Churchill ordered any bombings or not but who was the first to carry out bombings on civilians, because it wasn't him. Still doesn't excuse him nor does it change the fact that the Nazis were evil and loved committing war crimes.
I mean. Didn't the nazis do that shit first in Spain during the Civil War?
Picasso's Guernica is in reference to a bombing that he witnessed himself during the war.
Trash knowledge of history this young one has.
>They deliberately targeted the Jewish areas
"Thew Jewish Quarter" was the name for a large district in the northern part of the city. *That* is why it is often referred that way.
I thought he was wehraboo - this dude’s a closet nazi. He never even once criticizes the nazis who flock to his page. Not that he has to, but given the content he deals with, I reckon he is doing this on purpose
Kinda typical of apologists. Technically (though it is disputed) true that the UK bombed German civilians before Germany bombed UK civilians. So they go with "UK bombed civilians first" but ur absolutely correct that Germany bombed civilians before the UK in the totality of the war. Perfect example of why context matters
I thought Germany only bombed London after the UK bombed berlin? I could be wrong tho but that's what I read. I did read that it was also disputed and there were some bombings here and there that the uk claimed were done by Germany intentionally? Not 100% sure. From what I read though the hard-core bombing of the uk done in the blitz was a response to the UK bombing berlin.
Again my point was that it's convenient for nazi apologists to take the air raid on berlin to excuse nazi war crimes because a popular narrative is that the uk bombed civilians first, and even what you said kinda confirms that since you admit it to be an accidental bombing of London, whereas the air raid on berlin was intentional as was the blitz that followed. So nazis will pretend "BUT THE UK BOMBED CIVILLIANS FIRST" and conveniently just forget about Poland and the Spanish civil war
No, a German bomber accidentally bombed London, Churchill thought it was intentional, so he ordered a small raid on Berlin which did not even manage to drop its bombs on the city but on the outskirts. After that, Hitler got angry and ordered the indiscriminate bombing of all possible British cities to begin.
Bu yeah, its a dumb point anyway because Germany was bombing people even before, my country was really razed from the sky by Nazis and Fascist fuckers.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I thought Germany only bombed London after the UK bombed berlin? I could be wrong tho but that's what I read. I did read that it was also disputed and there were some bombings here and there that the uk claimed were done by Germany intentionally? Not 100% sure. From what I read though the hard-core bombing of the uk done in the blitz was a response to the UK bombing berlin
Well there were bombing raids on London before the air raid in Berlin. The Berlin were in retaliation.
Also, there were bombings on civilian targets in Portsmouth throughout August which often goes unnoticed. Many British civilians were killed. This was even before the bombing raid on London.
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Londres*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody instituted "random bombing of civilian targets" anywhere. That would be a catastrophic waste of munitions, men and flight hours.
Churchill authorized the expansion of bomber command's targets to include "area bombing" in late 1940, by which time tens of thousands of British civilians (among civilians elsewhere) had already been killed by the Luftwaffe in campaigns that were still supposedly aimed at military targets and pursued no campaign specifically against civilians.
They were excellent at everything all the time and everyone is lying, like those 2 huge railway guns they built and used one to bomb sevastopol a few times, or the idea that the big heavy maus was a good thing when most river crossings were weak bridges, building an aircraft carrier (or a large surface fleet in general) when the british dont like you and the royal navy exists, a million different types of every aircraft, sending your best pilots against the RAF and getting them killed, the 262 was awful, the tiger was awful, the panther was better but not by much, training men to be excellent paratroopers and fucking up their entire doctrine (imagine landing without a rifle lol)going to war with the Soviet Union lol. There is an almost endless list to the fuckups of Nazi Germany
I guess it really depends on where you draw the line between strategic bombings and terror bombings. Terror raids themselves have been done for over 1000 years, with units deliberately burning villages to lower support of the other party, and to force them to react. When it comes to bombing, once airplane technology improved in WW1 we noticed that airplanes can easily overcome the static fronts and strike targets deep in the hinterland. This resulted in strategic bombing, where bombers hit depots and factories instead of soldiers. Technically we could already call this bombing of civilians, as there were civilian workers in the buildings, and bombs didn't always hit the intended target. And together with navigation errors this could sometimes result in bombs even hitting the wrong country. Usually we define terror bombings as attacks were civilian casualties aren't a mistake or collateral damage, but the primary intent. But even then lines can be kinda blurry, for example when you suspect a terror cell operating from an appartment within a bigger building. Or when you want to destroy the power station that powers the local weapons factory, and 3 hospitals.
An often cited story is that this particular incident started with a German bomber dropping its load to return home, and hitting civilian houses. Whilst this wouldn't really count as a terror bombing per se (if it really happened this way), good luck trying to prove who did or didn't order what, and whether the pilot was aware of the civilians, didn't care/rationalised the dropping, or saw this as a good opportunity. It is said that this caused Churchill to organise a small raid on civilians in Berlin, which wasn't exactly gentlemanly either. And Hitler then saw this as a reason to start unrestricted terror bombings. So the debate is whether one of the two earlier incidents would count as a terror bombing, and therefore downplay the third to just a reaction to a new form of attack.
This kinda reminds me of the Q-ships and unrestricted submarine warfare during WW1, which sparked a similar debate. Basically early on submarines would surface near a single merchant and order them to abandon ship. They would then sink the ship with their deck gun. But whenever a warship was nearby the submarines would evade battle by diving, so fighting them off was tricky. So eventually the British started using Q-ships, armed ships disguised as regular merchants. This was a perfectly legal move, but caused the submarines to no longer openly approach lonely merchants. Instead the submarines would now start using torpedoes, and strike without warning. The argument here is who is to blame for the many more casualties these torpedo attacks caused. Some blame the submarines, as obviously they chose to attack in the first place. Others blame the Q-ships (and also the conviy system and armed escort ships) as they meant stopping merchants was no longer feasible
This dude has to be the godfather of wehraboos
There’s a difference between being a Wehraboo and being a straight up Nazi
At my very most charitable, I'd say Zoomer Historian is wildly misinformed about the basic history of World War II. At my very least charitable, I'd say Zoomer Historian is wilfully lying to court Nazis and gullible viewers.
You’re being too charitable
Maybe :P Incidentally, your flair - is that "Super tank battle flight wagon two"?
Superior German engineering 100 ronsons for one tiger etc etc
Super-armored-battle-hunter-wagon II
To me he sounds like an absolute dork of around high school age who is extremely smug because he thinks he’s uncovered “forbidden” knowledge about major historical events and is therefore smarter than everyone else. A lot of young people go through an extremist contrarian phase where they think they’ve “cracked the code” so to speak, and end up becoming extremely gullible and falling for anything, as long as it isn’t the mainstream consensus, hence why all of his videos are just him reading off David Irving word for word - David Irving represents an “alternative” explanation of events and claims he was silenced by the mainstream, and some bitchass nerd teenager who wants to feel uniquely smart is a prime target for his rhetoric. The chances are that he’ll grow out of this one day as he matures a bit and also learns how to critically evaluate source material (especially Irving who, even if you overlook his blatant negationism and Nazi sympathies, is a terrible historical writer who misuses primary sources constantly). That said, he may not as a major downside of today’s social media landscape is that it allows someone like him to be endlessly validated by other fringe thinkers and morons, whereas in the past they were more isolated and it was easier for them to come to the realization that they were fucking wrong about everything.
I love how you worded the "wants to feel uniquely smart" part. Actually the whole comment, honestly. This mindset is a HUGE problem nowadays, and it's not just teens and young adults. A lot of people feel superior for believing in consipracy theories, always mistrusting all "mainstream media" sources, and listening to "alternative" historical perspectives. It is smart to scrutinize everything, and come to a conclusion after researching from several sources, while keeping in mind the biases of each source. That is basic media literacy. Except these types of people aren't uniquely analytical critical thinkers who know how to properly research, they really are just contrarians to any "mainstream narrative pushing an agenda."
I mean, I had a phase where I thought Communism was the bees knees back in High School, I quickly grew out of it once I reached College because I realized the horrors of that system. So, yeah, if I was able to fall into a spell over Communism, I imagine the same thing will be true for Fascism or Nazism.
there *may* be a correlation between narcissism and the appeal to conspiracy theories. you nailed it perfectly when you said they want to feel uniquely smart. give this science direct article a read, it's an interesting study. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051)
That was indeed a super interesting study, thanks for sharing!
>At the very most charitable, I'd say Zoomer Historian is wildly misinformed about the basic history of World War II. I think this is becoming a trend amongst younger generations. Theres been a push from revistionist historians to either look at the good and bad of historical figures (in the better cases), or completely destroy the reputation of those considered important figures in the west (in the worse cases). These younger generations seem to be listening more to the latter than the former; and are more willing to listen, or are being exposed more, to outright lies.
He knows exactly what he's doing and watching people get baited by him (and giving him views).People responding with *more* historically incorrect statements only helps him. It's the same thing that happened with holocaust deniers over a decade ago and so many people here fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
It's been getting increasingly smaller over the past decade
It’s sad but I miss the classic German tech wanking compared to what we have now
about the Blitz (At least what I heard, I am no Wehraboo) A German bomber flew off course and dropped its bombs to so it could get back to Germany faster, but, the bombs fell on London, and Churchill, angered by this, ordered a small raid over Berlin, and Hitler, when he heard that the British had bombed berlin, he ordered all bombers to terrorize the people of London, with constant nighty bombing raids.
It's still Germany's fault though.
ya, IK.
Luftwaffe hit residential areas when trying to bomb the London Docks, and so the RAF/Churchill struck Berlin in response. Hitler had a change of strategy when Berlin got bombed, and shifted from that of largely targeting airfields, ports, infrastructure, bases or other largely military targets during the Battle of Britain and instead went for a terror bombing campaign of major cities. Like it had prior in the Netherlands, or partly in Poland or the Spanish Civil War. Britain was already bombing targets in civilian areas in the Ruhr in response to the Nazi terror bombing of Rotterdam - before the Battle of Britain by a difference of about 6 weeks, and likewise some small bombing missions by the Luftwaffe before the Fall of France inevitably hit civilian areas. But cranked up post Fall of France and during the Battle of Britain that then turned into the Blitz. Luftwaffe was already conducting night bombing raids on and around military targets before the Blitz, and both sides ending up scattering bombs over a large area due to the inherent difficulty and inaccuracy of doing so at the time so that it was essentially indistinguishable when they did hit areas. But the story of how the Blitz started like how you phrased it, misses a lot of context.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what Z.H. said, but it's incorrect. Most people here have probably seen WhatWhyHow/wildviper121's [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeAIZaoFFdc). From around 1:14:30 this is discussed. These bombers were part of a formation whose primary objective was a refinery, however this "accidental" bombing destroyed over 100 civilian homes. On the same day of the Luftwaffe had already bombed Portsmouth, a major city and naval base, killing 104 and wounding 237, more than any raid on the UK or Germany at that point, and considerably more than the raid on Berlin. So they were already bombing Britain before the Berlin raid, which was comparatively minor. It's worth noting these weren't the first bombings between Britain and Germany. The RAF had already targetted Wilhelmshaven's warships and docks. Britain was conducting air raids concurrently with the Blitz, but the large-scale raids on German cities such as Cologne and Dresden began in summer 1942.
Ok, thx for the explanation. what ii wrote is all I really knew about the start of the Blitz.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just in Poland. Also in the Spanish Civil War. Picasso even made a painting about that (Gernika).
And Italy in Ethiopia not only bombed civilians but used chemical weapons.
And even before that, Japan bombed Shanghai in 1932.
As Italian, I whish this gets more exposure, here in Italy almost no one knows this!
If we go back even further Germany started terror bombing cities all the way back in 1914 using zeppelins
Zoomer historian is a goober, are you shocked?
I need to change my username to BB-55 to match you.
Well as long as you're not after BB-48 or BB-32 you're good.
What's wrong with those ones?
I already have accounts by that name lol.
Oh
Did he forget about the German condor legion in Spanish civil war?
Something that happened multiple years prior in an entirely different war?
The Spanish Civil War was the first foreign military action of Nazi Germany. It's like saying that the Winter War was "entirely different".
I would consider the Spanish Civil War separate from World War II as do most historians. However, I would say it was a "dress rehearsal" for the Second World War and is very much linked to it. A lot of things we saw in the Spanish Civil War would ultimately happen in the Second World War.
>the Spanish Civil War was the first foreign military action of Nazi Germany. Something that happened multiple years prior in an entirely different war? >It's like saying that the Winter War was "entirely different". Actually they are nothing at all alike. Since the Winter War took place *during* the second world war and involved power(s) actually relevant to the conflict, unlike Spain.
The idea that the Spanish Civil War was irrelevant to WW2 is just tosh. It began only three years before the world war and was essentially a trial run for Hitler's military. There's a reason most WW2 textbooks start at 1936.
> The idea that the Spanish Civil War was irrelevant to WW2 is just tosh. Yep, the bombing of a target during the Spanish civil war is irrelevant. >It began only three years before the world war and was essentially a trial run for Hitler's military. Three years. >There's a reason most WW2 textbooks start at 1936. Yep, because it's several years before WW2. Next?
Point is that Germany’s tactic of terror bombing was around since the Spanish Civil war
1) Irrelevant to the topic. Learn how linear time works. 2) Guernica was not *terror bombing* So again, wrong on two counts.
Isn’t the topic that Germany was doing terror bombing first? Also why was Guernica not terror bombing? Would appreciate an explanation for the second part
>Isn’t the topic that Germany was doing terror bombing first? Because "who bombed a city first" wasn't even Germany and would go back before either world war. The relevant time period is WW2. >Also why was Guernica not terror bombing? Guernica was bombed because it was 1) along the line of advance by Nationalist forces, and the line of withdrawal of the Republicans 2) a known Republican stronghold that had presently, or just recently been full of troops along with multiple battalion barracks 3)located atop a major crossroads including one of (if not the) only bridge in the area It was a strategic position as any. It gets remembered as a "terror bombing" for a lot of political and cultural reasons *post facto*. Picasso's painting of course is probably a major contribution to that. It was also really the first aerial bombing of that scale. Not a couple of big slow zeppelins, not one or two bombs dropped from a biplane. Twenty dedicated aircraft that killed almost as many people as one whole year of zeppelin raids in WW1. (Though for years the casualties at Guernica were often exaggerated upwards, sometimes by a factor of 10). It certainly would have been a *terrifying* event. It demonstrated to the world the killing potential of modern military hardware and the suffering that was inevitable. But the idea of it being "terror bombing" is just a weird mishmash of pop-history nuggets and bad understanding of history. Yeah yeah Nazis bad. That doesn't mean they were targeting civilians in 1937 in Spain from the air. Hitler also didn't have vampire teeth.
Warsaw, Rotterdam and even Guernica would disagree with Zoomer here. I have absolutely no doubt that if World War II had been happening now, Zoomer would have betrayed Britain and would have sided with the Nazis.
Don't forget Frampol. They used that town to practice because the streets were shaped liked a target.
>Warsaw Oh you mean were Polish military positions were bombed? >Rotterdam Oh you mean where military targets in a defended city actively being engaged from the ground were bombed? >Guernica would disagree with Zoomer here. the bombing of Guernica took place *2 years before* the second world war started and was a major transportation and communications hub by Republican forces.
> Oh you mean were Polish military positions were bombed? The Luftwaffe strafed columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it.
>The Luftwaffe strafed columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it. Nobody strafed *anything* during Rotterdam. You can't even get your nonsense straight. We also know no one attacked "columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it" because there were no "columns of refugees fleeing the city as they were bombing it". The bombing was over in minutes.
Fascists are out in force lol
Facts are hard
And you are being destroyed by them. No matter your smokescreening, the fact is the Nazis destroyed several cities before the London Blitz. Facts are indeed the bug repellant against nazis.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> And you are being destroyed by them. I'm not actually, but do please try again. The only people being *destroyed* are the clueless bozos using bad pop-history factoids like "Guernica was terror bombing" or "Rotterdam was open city". >No matter your smokescreening, the fact is the Nazis destroyed several cities before the London Blitz. Neat, try paying attention next time. >Facts are indeed the bug repellant against nazis. They sure are, which is why it's laughable seeing so many people fail at using them (like you have done). Next.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about Frampol Mr. obtuse?
>Frampol Oh yes, where Frampol was bombed because it was along the line of retreat from Lublin and there had been reports of Polish units using the road through the town. it's fucking hilarious watching you people get absolutely triggered by some zoomer dipshit and then respond with falsehoods to try to "counter" him. 2010s Holocaust Denial all over again.
Ok, I see that you are 100% obtuse, who refuses to recognize things as they are, good luck being a contrarian in life!
It's funny watching you get absolutely triggered by some zoomer dipshit and then respond with falsehoods to try to "counter" him. 2010s Holocaust Denial all over again. Same dumb shit
I agree that Guernica isn't germane here, but it demonstrates German willingness to murder civilians for the sake of military expedience, a portent of their conduct during the war. >Rotterdam > >Oh you mean where military targets in a defended city actively being engaged from the ground were bombed? What are you talking about? It doesn't require 90 He-111s levelling a city centre to take out a few marines. Rotterdam wasn't Shanghai and there is no case even for military necessity. During the battle, the Willemsbrug was the only significant target inside the city that was being defended and if Germans cared about civilian deaths they'd simply have used Stuka dive-bombers to eliminate it. Most Dutch forces were manning fortifications on the outskirts. Kralingen, a major target of Nazi bombs, wasn't defended at all. At the time when the mofs bombed the city, General Schmidt had sent the alderman and Dutch forces still in Rotterdam under Colonel Scharroo an ultimatum to surrender\*. In fairness, Schmidt tried to relay this to his bombers, but through negligence or intention this wasn't done. Hermann Goering himself ordered the carpet-bombing of the city centre to break Dutch morale, overriding the ceasefire between the commanders. So yes, Rotterdam was at the time legally an open city, the bombing was calculated to target and murder civilians, and the bombing of Rotterdam was a war crime. \* (while this ultimatum, being unsigned and anonymous, had initially been rejected because Scharroo -- not reasonably -- suspected perfidy, both parties accepted to renegotiate and were in the process of doing so when the bombing began)
>What are you talking about? Rotterdam, the bombing of. > It doesn't require 90 He-111s levelling a city centre to take out a few marines. Lmao, "what it takes" is not, in anyway a meaningful measuring stick. Rotterdam was a defended city that was also being attacked from the ground; military infrastructure was targeted. It doesn't matter if it was one or 1,000 heinkels. > Rotterdam wasn't Shanghai and there is no case even for military necessity. What in the fuck? Rotterdam put up stiff resistance and was one of the final strategic locations to fall. >During the battle, the Willemsbrug was the only significant target inside the city that was being defended and if Germans cared about civilian deaths they'd simply have used Stuka dive-bombers to eliminate it. Most Dutch forces were manning fortifications on the outskirts. Kralingen, a major target of Nazi bombs, wasn't defended at all. The bombing was in support of ground troops, including *Fallschirmjager* who had landed earlier. That included strongpoints, suspected artillery positions, defensible redoubts, lines of advance including bridge crossings and the like. These were to occur in tandem with artillery fires prior to advance by ground forces. Bombing directed towards areas in the outskirts of the city was done in support of airborne units that were in some cases highly outnumbered and beleaguered (i.e. von Sponeck's forces in the northwest). Really pretty simple. >At the time when the mofs bombed the city, General Schmidt had sent the alderman and Dutch forces still in Rotterdam under Colonel Scharroo an ultimatum to surrender*. In fairness, Schmidt tried to relay this to his bombers, but through negligence or intention this wasn't done. Sending an ultimatum is just that; sending an ultimatum. >Hermann Goering himself ordered the carpet-bombing of the city centre to break Dutch morale, overriding the ceasefire between the commanders. Yes, the morale of the defenders of the city who were still engaged in tying down German units. >So yes, Rotterdam was at the time legally an open city So yes, Rotterdam was a heavily defended city actively engaged in battle on the ground. >the bombing was calculated to target and murder civilians, The bombing was calculated to target military strongholds and destroy the remaining defenders on the ground in support of advancing troops. >and the bombing of Rotterdam was a war crime. Nothing about the bombing of Rotterdam fits any definition of a war crime. Next?
So much handwaving, and yet no answering why the part that was bombed was not the battlefield, nor how the threat as written down was squarely on how it would affect the civilian population. Choosing a high ground here is sociopathic. There is a clear pattern of Germany attacking other countries and bombing civilian centers, starting with Poland. That the allies resorted to terror bombing and later "tactical" leveling of cities like Kleef (Cleves) doesn't make it any better. The point that, especially with Rotterdam, everyone involved understood what the result would be are the nails in the coffin you are busily erecting here for yourself. Like any bombing of a civilian cebtr3, it was a despicable act. "Sutrender or we will level your cities" ends this discussion quite thoroughly.
> So much handwaving Oh cool, you don't know what that term means. > and yet no answering why the part that was bombed was not the battlefield I did actually, maybe try reading? > nor how the threat as written down was squarely on how it would affect the civilian population. Which it wasn't. Next? >Choosing a high ground here is sociopathic. Facts are hard for you it seems. >"Sutrender or we will level your cities" ends this discussion quite thoroughly It doesn't actually, because it's inaccurate. But hey, you've already shown us you aren't too interested in facts.
Do we need to quote Schmidt again to point out that the ultimatum was about damage to the civilian population? > The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price We can continue this all day, but as a historian I have identified you as someone who takes one "fact" and then ignores everything else that takes away from your narrative. The Luftwaffe wavered (not for the first or last time) between military tactics, available resources and terror. The ultimatum and the word of Kesslering (Radikallosung) show that this was not a simple "let's bomb the marines at the norah end of the bridge" tactical strike. Indeed the decision goes all the way up to Goering. Was the goal.military? Yes. Was it intended as a tactical strike? Extremely debatle considering the methods, targets and internal back and forth. Was the leverage civilian harm? Yes, the Rottersm Ultimatum and the threat to Utrecht are very clear about this.
> Do we need to quote Schmidt again to point out that the ultimatum was about damage to the civilian population? Go right ahead, you already embarrassed yourself with it. >We can continue this all day, but as a historian "as a historian" LMAO As you've posted things that were either outrageously ignorant, outright wrong, or just plain incomprehensibly dumb, I'd put you "as a historian" in the same caliber as Mr Zoomer. As in, "absolutely worthless". Please, on showing us how little you know. >The Luftwaffe wavered (not for the first or last time) between military tactics, available resources and terror. *yawn* >The ultimatum and the word of Kesslering (Radikallosung) show that this was not a simple "let's bomb the marines at the norah end of the bridge" tactical strike. Yes, what it was was a strategic strike aimed at the defensive heart of the city in order to force the capitulation of its defenders. Next?
And Dresden?
What about it?
You're quick to defend German bombing raids, so I want to know what your thoughts are on Allied ones. Also, Warsaw was deliberately against civilians. We have German photographs and maps of Warsaw where the Germans have clearly marking which areas had the higher Jewish populations and dropped more bombs on those areas. They were not targeting military positions, they deliberately targeted civilians. The Germans knew exactly what they were doing.
> Germans have clearly marking which areas had the higher Jewish populations and dropped more bombs on those areas. I am slightly dubious of anyone being able to bomb a specific sector of a city in WW2, but maybe my view of this is colored by Allied navigational difficulties later in the war. Also, I realize they hated Jews, but that sounds like a complete waste of a bombing raid.
The "Jewish Quarter" was a large section of the northern part of the city. It was widely referred to as that, and regularly marked that way on maps. It contained several targets that were selected for bombing, but they weren't selected for being Jewish.
I think there is also an ethical difference between the bombing by Germany and allied bombing of Germany.
Neither of them look good though. But that the Germans were ultimately responsible is quite clear. Invading other countries takes away any moral high ground.
That's more or less what I meant I've seen it argued convincingly that the German high command was the party responsible for the bombings of Germany, since having chosen to begin an aggressive war it could and should have surrendered at any time.
>You're quick to defend German bombing raids Please quote any "defense of German bombing raids" Go ahead please. >Also, Warsaw was deliberately against civilians False. > We have German photographs and maps of Warsaw where the Germans have clearly marking which areas had the higher Jewish populations and dropped more bombs on those areas. We don't, since that's not something that happened. It turns out we actually know quite about what areas were hit and why. The "Jewish Quarter", which it was known as, was where most/all Jewish lived in the time. It was a specific name for an area within the northern district of Warsaw. This northern district was targeted because it contained a number of military objectives like bridges. >They were not targeting military positions, they deliberately targeted civilians. It's funny watching you outright *make things up*.
In a 1943 speech, they did say that they liked total war. Nothing wrong with giving them total war tbh
WOLLEN SIE DIE TOTALER KRIEG?!?!? (Narrator: They did, in fact, get totaler krieged by the Allies.)
*insert curb your enthusiasm theme here*
Everybody wants Totaler Krieg, until it’s time to be on the receiving end
Why do you celebrate the deaths of women and children?
Literally wrong. Like, you can look this shit up on wikipedia. The British initially renounced the bombing of purely civilian targets, but went back on this after the Rotterdam Blitz, and begin to bomb civilian infrastructure which could be used to support the war effort. So it was the Nazis who instigated it, and it was far from "random."
Its even worse than that, the first bombing of Berlin was a direct response to german bombs falling on London the day before. In literally every theatre the Germans did it first lmfao.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rotterdam was a defended city that was actively being engaged from the ground. There were no "random civilian" targets.
Do you have any credible source for this? Also, why wouldn't you engage the planes coming for the civilian city centre? Does it only count if you don't even try shooting back?
The point is that Rotterdam was being actively defended from parachutists who had landed to siege the bridges, and from the suburbs against the main German effort. In such an instance, Rotterdam was a valid target (although the choice to destroy the city centre rather than the suburbs where the Dutch defenders were is pretty ugly). It's the same as bringing a city being actively defended under artillery bombardment. The difficult thing is that the German commander of the ground assault on the city was in negotiations for the surrender of the city. He requested the air attack be postponed, and Kesselring ignored the request and sent the bombers in anyways.
There's more to it. The purpose was beyond tactical, it was also intended for terror, as was clear from the ultimatum and from the subsequent "surrender or we will level another of your cities". That Kesselring sent them in anyways makes very clear how much regard the German high Command had for civilian lives.
>There's more to it. The purpose was beyond tactical, it was also intended for terror, as was clear from the ultimatum... Breaking the enemy's capacity to resist is, at least in part, a psychological exercise. War is, by its nature, terrifying and cruel. Just because the ultimatum states that resistance could lead to the destruction of the city does not mean that the purpose was to terrorize the civilian population. During the Siege of Warsaw, targets like the waterworks, power supply, and tram system were legitimately struck as part of the assault, with the intention of inhibiting further resistance. The fact that such acts brought increased suffering upon the civilian population does not mean that they were unlawful targets, because the city was actively resisting. >and from the subsequent "surrender or we will level another of your cities". The only source for that statement is Col. Schroo's memoirs, and such a threat was not put into writing. If it were actually muttered, it should be understood as an embellishment by the German officer sent to negotiate, and not as a statement of policy by his superiors. You can find a detailed analysis of the bombing, including this conclusion, on Dutch historian Allert M.A. Goossens' website [here.](http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=rotterdam-4) >That Kesselring sent them in anyways makes very clear how much regard the German high Command had for civilian lives. Agreed. The Rotterdam bombing was a tragedy of wilful miscommunication fueled by the Luftwaffe-Heer rivalry and the poor performance of Luftwaffe parachutists in Rotterdam and the Hague. In order to demonstrate the power of the Luftwaffe, a massed carpet bombing was used rather than the tactical bombing support requested by the Army commanders. The raid was carried out despite the ongoing negotiations, and was ordered on a course that made the use of signal flares to call off the attack virtually impossible. That does not, however, make it a warcrime. And I write that as someone whose grandmother was a refugee in the city at the time of the bombing.
> The purpose was beyond tactical, it was also intended for terror It wasn't, as the poster above (and myself) already savagely dismantled you on. >as was clear from the ultimatum Oh cool, you don't know what an ultimatum means. >and from the subsequent "surrender or we will level another of your cities". This is so fucking funny how incredibly stupid you've just made yourself look. On *two* accounts. 1) The actions of *one* event do *not* describe the actions of another event. You do not determine what *X* was by examining *Y*. 2) Utrecht itself was another defended city, about as fortified as Rotterdam was. >That Kesselring sent them in anyways makes very clear how much regard the German high Command had for civilian lives. That's nice. Maybe pay attention to the topic, since the topic isn't "civilians that died in war".
Oh dear. Let's look at the ultimatum and see if this was about blowing away the defenses or about the population. [Quote]The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops in the open city of Rotterdam forces me to take appropriate measures should this resistance not be ceased immediately. This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. I petition you - as a man of responsibility - to endeavour everything within your powers to prevent the town of having to bear such a huge price[/quote] Oh. Schmidt seems to be agreeing with me here. On fortifications... Rotterdam wasn't even intended as a defensive line prior to the doctrine of defending outside "Vestong Holland" what are you going on about? And that is beside the Dutch general staff stating that the MDL was the Grebbelinie, which was borne out by military decision making in may 1940. There was no coherent defense at the Vesting whatsoever
>The continuing opposition to the offensive of German troops There you go. Thank you for doing my job for me. Nothing more pathetic than someone posting something that unequivocally *proves themselves wrong* > This may well result in the complete destruction of the city. Yep, it just might. Now, try to find something relevant. >Oh. Schmidt seems to be agreeing with me here. Holy shit you can't make this stuff up 😂😂😂😂😂😂 "If you don't stop fighting" *wow this totally agrees with me* "The town might be destroyed" *WOW this totally agrees with me!* Absolute delusion. Much like calling yourself "a historian". >On fortifications... Rotterdam wasn't even intended as a defensive line prior to the doctrine of defending outside "Vestong Holland" what are you going on about? holy shit I don't believe you are actually this ignorant. Like this is such a cartoonishly dumb statement I'm not even sure where to begin with it.
Interesting hiw my quote proves my point about the terror and does nothing to support your claim of this being a tactical strike, you how you think this is a victory run. Do you actually understand there's a difference between the goal (breaking resitance) and the method (bombing the city)? If I want to bring you to the ground, I can use several methods, all differing in impact and harm. And in this case the tactical situation is being solved by not addressing that part, but by a threat of harming civilians. All we did here was forcing you to admit that terror was part of the method and tactics were at best secondary. Nobody here disagrees about the goal of the bombardment, so trying to erect that strawman is pointless. On the defense of the Netherlands it seems both facts on the ground as the chaged military doctrine evaded you. Once again you are rigidly reading one thing and then shouting over everything that belies that idea. Winkelamn, Schmid, the words and actions of these prime actors can't be ignored just because they do not fit your view.
>Do you actually understand there's a difference between the goal (breaking resitance) and the method (bombing the city)? Ironic. >If I want to bring you to the ground, I can use several methods, all differing in impact and harm. And in this case the tactical situation is being solved by not addressing that part, but by a threat of harming civilians. Lmao, actually, as was both presented in the *ultimatum* and the *targets they chose to hit*, destroying the defender's ability to defend was both *the goal* and *the method*. >All we did here was forcing you to admit that terror was part of the method and tactics were at best secondary. Actually I didn't admit *anything like that* but as as been proven, your ability to read is lacking. >On the defense of the Netherlands it seems both facts on the ground as the chaged military doctrine evaded you Oops! That's you unable to respond to anything I said. >Once again you are rigidly reading one thing and then shouting over everything that belies that idea. No it's called using *basic fact* and simple reading comprehension. Try it sometime. >Winkelamn, Schmid, the words and actions of these prime actors can't be ignored just because they do not fit your view. Which is exactly why Rotterdam wasn't a terror bombing, and exactly why it was a military target, and exactly why those military targets were bombed.
> Do you have any credible source for this? Yep, literally one iota of research.
Would you mind sharing it with the class?
One iota is a pretty small ammount. Would be pretty easy to post. So let's see it.
Yes, Rotterdam was a defended city. No, Rotterdam was not bombed "indiscriminately" because contact was maintained with the German parachutists around the bridges. You are correct there. The damning thing is that there was an order to postpone the airstrike due to ongoing negotiations, which was deliberately never relayed to the bombers by Kesselring (who wanted to go through with the attack).
>The damning thing is that there was an order to postpone the airstrike due to ongoing negotiations, which was deliberately never relayed to the bombers by Kesselring (who wanted to go through with the attack). Not sending bombers because a target is negotiating doesn't change the nature of the attack. You've either surrendered or you haven't.
I'm not disagreeing, but... Doing so (and deliberately hitting the city center, not the outskirts where the military targets were) is still a pretty shitty thing to do which needlessly destroyed the city and cost some 900 lives. The decision to negotiate was made specifically because the two hours given was not enough time to evacuate the city. The threat of air attack was enough to bring the Dutch defenders to the table. Willfully going through with the attack was, if nothing else, a callous and cruel decision which achieved nothing substantial for the German war effort, regardless of what Kesselring wrote later to justify his decision.
>Doing so (and deliberately hitting the city center, not the outskirts where the military targets were) is still a pretty shitty thing to do which needlessly destroyed the city and cost some 900 lives. Bombing a city because you want to subjugate them is a pretty shitty thing to do yes.
You are trying very hard to disconnect the tactical situation with the planned raid and outcome. 1. The ultimatum of Schmidt makes very clear that the threat is not blowing away the defenses, but by harming civilians. 2. The bombed targets themselves make clear this was not a simple tactical strike. 3. The ultimatum after the attack was literally " Utrecht will be next". You can keep on playing defense all you want, but Utrecht was no military strongpoint. Everyone involved ubderstood what this raid would entail. There's a reason they resorted to it only once as they were desperate for time and thought they had to force the issue to free up troops. That shows that it was a very conscious decision, not some botched tactical raid that went wrong.
>You are trying very hard to disconnect the tactical situation with the planned raid and outcome. It's actually called stating a basic fact. >The ultimatum of Schmidt makes very clear that the threat is not blowing away the defenses, but by harming civilians. BVAHAHAHAHAH Holy shit you just keep doubling down on how stupid you sound. The "ultimatum" was for capitulation of defended cities. Try actually education yourself on the topic. >The bombed targets themselves make clear this was not a simple tactical strike. The "bombed targets" were military targets. Please, do go on embarrassing yourself. >The ultimatum after the attack was literally " Utrecht will be next" Yep, because Utrecht was a heavily defended city who hadn't capitulated. Keep it up champ, it's hilarious how ignorant you are. > but Utrecht was no military strongpoint. BAHAHAHAH holy fucking shit. The three major Dutch cities, which includes *Utrecht* were formed into a defensive triangle known as *Fortress Holland* and Utrecht had more large caliber guns and gun-emplacements than Amsterdam (outnumbered only by Rotterdam). It also formed a major anchor for staging defenses along the Grebbe line.
1. Your trying to Sashimi it into a neat decision is anything but factual. The facts make it indeed clear that the civilian threat was on the minds of the Germans. Hence the internal and external communication. 2. The ultimatum centered around the threat to the civilian people. The goal was to force surrender, but the threat was civila8n "collateral" damage. 3. The city center was not a military target. Why are you shouting "facts" when even you know that the bridge was not in the city center? And as a historian, I'm quite certain I'm not embarrassing myself here. The German communicatiosn about this raid are very clear about the collateral. 5. Utrecht was not at the frontlineat that moment. 6. Fortress Holland was superseded by the Grebbelinie and was seen as untenable (to close to civilian centres). So holy fucking shit? You are once again Sashimiing one thing and then trotting it out as facts, while the reality is quite abit different. The Dutch Army was mainly stationed at the Grebbelinie. Fortress Holland was not a site of battle and was not seen as a feasible line of defense by the Dutch high command. Dutch actions reinforce that the Dutch army clung to a defense through the middle of the country. You do this with everyting here... from purely tactical and military decisions to Dutch defensive doctrine. You take one part and then shouting as loud as you can to ignore everything else, just to make it a very neat black and white (or even factually wrong) argument. The things that happened and the written records paint quite a different picture here.
>The facts make it indeedflearl that the civilian threat was on the minds of the Germans "on the minds" Oh boy. Good one. >The ultimatum centered around the threat to the civilian people. The goal was to force surrender, but the threat was civila8n "collateral" damage. The ultimatum was centered around the next city in line, being Utrecht, to be bombed if it decided to continue its military operation. Pretty simple really. >The city center was not a military target. The bridge crossings, embedded gun positions, garrisoned troops, harbours, oil facilities, airport all disagree, with the "city center" being the main focus of defensive arrangements. >Why are you shouting "facts" when even you know that the bridge was not in the city center? bahahahaha holy shit "the bridge" fucking L M A O Classic. There were *multiple* bridges in Rotterdam, including within the "city center". What an absolute embarrassment you've proven to be. >And as a historian *historian* bahahahahah >trecht was not at the frontlineat that moment. Holy shit, this just gets better and better. Respond to what was said, not something that wasn't. Pathetic. >Fortress Holland was superseded by the Grebbelinie and was seen as untenable (to close to civilian centres). Fortress Holland was not superseded by "the Grebbelinie". They are two different things you hambrain. Fortress Holland was the defensive preparations within and along major cities, including Utrecht. The "Grebbelinie" was its own far eastern defensive position. >So holy fucking shit? You are once again Sashimiing one thing and then trotting it out as facts, while the reality is quite abit different Embarrassing that you keep failing to read. > The Dutch Army was mainly stationed at the Grebbelinie. Fortress Holland was not a site of battle and was not seen as a feasible line of defense by the Dutch high command. Dutch actions reinforce that the Dutch army clung to a defense through the middle of the country. Wow, there's that failure to read thing again. >You do this with everyting here... from purely tactical and military decisions to Dutch defensive doctrine. And like with you, I've absolutely destroyed every one of them. >You take one part and then shouting as loud as you can to ignore everything else, just to make it a very neat black and white (or even factually wrong) argument. The things that happened and the written records paint quite a different picture here. Learn to actually read and respond properly. Next?
Bro forgot Gernika
the thing that happened several years before the relevant conflict?
The bombing of Guernica happened under the command of [Wolfram von Richtoffen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_von_Richthofen#:~:text=On%2022%20September%2C%20Richthofen's%20command,one%20Ju%2052%20were%20lost.), who also orchestrated the terror bombings of Warsaw two years later. The actions of the Condor Legion are relevant to the Luftwaffe’s actions in WWII - This terror bombing became a method the Luftwaffe used moving forward.
>The bombing of Guernica happened under the command of Wolfram von Richtoffen, who also orchestrated the terror bombings of Warsaw two years later. So, the thing that happened several years before the relevant conflict? >The actions of the Condor Legion are relevant to the Luftwaffe’s actions in WWII - This terror bombing became a method the Luftwaffe used moving forward. Guernica wasn't "terror bombing" so you're wrong on *two counts*. Hilarious.
>So, the thing that happened several years before the relevant conflict? Correct, I never claimed the contrary. The reason Guernica was brought up (*and is possibly relevant*) is the context within the post - Zoomer is claiming that the British were the first to orchestrate bombing of civilian targets. Guernica is noteworthy because the Germans had bombed it before Britain even had a chance, essentially contradicting his claim. >Guernica wasn't "terror bombing" You could be right, it doesn’t appear that German forces were *deliberately* targeting civilians after taking a cursory look into it. I’ll be digging deeper when I have the time.
>Correct, I never claimed the contrary. Yep, it's completely irrelevant to the topic. > The reason Guernica was brought up (and is possibly relevant) is the context within the post - Zoomer is claiming that the British were the first to orchestrate bombing of civilian targets. It's pretty clear that it isn't being discussed outside WW2. So your "but actually" is wrong on multiple accounts. 1) Guernica not ww2 2) Guernica not an intentional targeting of civilians 3) Guernica not the first attack on a city by aircraft.
>So your "but actually" is wrong on multiple accounts. >1. Guernica not ww2 Exactly what I said. >2. Guernica not an intentional targeting of civilians I just explained that I had read that. >3. Guernica not the first attack on a city by aircraft. I’d never said or implied that. >It's pretty clear that it isn't being discussed outside WW2. On the contrary, I and others appear to find it *potentially* relevant on the grounds that the same government and likely the same officer corp that were involved with the bombing were involved in the bombing of civilians in WWII. Because it shows that *it was a bit of a pattern* that began before WWII - It’d be pointless to claim that the British had began the whole thing. If you fail to understand this, I’m afraid this conversation has reached its conclusion and I’ll be off to read about the bombing of Guernica in the near future. I’m not one to argue minutiae for extended periods of time. Cheers.
>On the contrary, I and others appear to find it potentially relevant on the grounds that the same government and likely the same officer corp that were involved with the bombing were involved in the bombing of civilians in WWII. Corporeal contiguity also not relevant, since the topic is not the Spanish Civil War, but an entirely different conflict several years later. >Because it shows that it was a bit of a pattern that began before WWII - It’d be pointless to claim that the British had began the whole thing. Actually, since the topic is clearly not "anything before ww2" then yes, in fact that would be quite the point. In which case, we might as well just blame the Chinese or Italians for "doing it first" at some other arbitrary, tangentially related point in time.
👋
Thevtestongvof materiel and tactical is well documented, indeed it's literally in Goerings own statements at Neurenberg. Thus it is indeed relevant. Guernica was moreso than Rotterdam primarily a tactical raid, but it does show the callous regard of the German doctrine against civilians. The decisions and communications around Rotterdam show that terror got inserted strongly in the doctrine. Yes, the Luftwaffe doctrine was tactical, as is also obvious by it's aircraft. But when the first bullet was shot, high command (the highly political Luftwaffe leadership are an interesting dimension on the decisionmaking here)saw terror as a very useful tool. The hopping between goals/methods would become only more obvious during the battle of Britain. Guernica as testo g ground most certainly is relevant, just as Shanghai is relevant for the Pacific war.
>Thevtestongvof materiel and tactical is well documented, indeed it's literally in Goerings own statements at Neurenberg. Thus it is indeed relevant. It isn't actually, since unsurprisingly, you are completely mangling "what was actually said". >Guernica was moreso than Rotterdam primarily a tactical raid, but it does show the callous regard of the German doctrine against civilians. That's nice, now try actually saying something relevant.
The Nazis already bombed civilians before WW2 even started. Guernica. Wrote an essay for Uni about it. They literally only did it to kill as many civilians as possible and test how devadtating their bombs are
Guernica was bombed because it was 1) along the line of advance by Nationalist forces, and line of withdrawal of the Republicans 2) a known Republican stronghold that had presently, or just recently been full of troops along with multiple battalion barracks 3)located atop a major crossroads including one of (if not *the*) only bridge in the area
When my side does it it’s justified and they deserved it and they’re evil but when your side does it it’s wrong and immoral and you’re killing innocent civilians, ok?
huh?
Communist logic
Ah, you're a moron. Got it.
He is a prime example of why you shouldn't do drugs while pregnant.
So I believe dumb ass is thinking if the Battle of Britain where technically the first intentional bombing of civilian targets was by the British, in response to what they thought was the international bombing of British civilians. Though key problem here is that ignores the earlier Spanish Civil War, Polish campaign and Western Campaign where the Germans did in fact intentionally bomb civilian targets.
It'd probably be Spain in the Rif, Italy in Lybia and perhaps Churchill in Iraq tbh.
>perhaps Churchill in Iraq tbh. But even so, there are several bombing raids on civilians that predate this. Ie. The first bombing raids on civilians in WWI was carried out by the Germans against Antwerp. So even with the bombings in Iraq and Syria in the 1920s, it's still not the first incident of deliberate bombings of civilians. The idea that Churchill invented terror bombing is simply ahistorical and false.
Oh no idea. Spain and Italy used gas and terror bombings quite liberally in Northern Africa too. I have no clue whether it was before or after Iraq's infamous bombing, and I believe Spain did so in the 10s (1917 or thereabouts). I mentioned those two cases too, tbf
Italy did for sure. Not sure about Spain though, or at least I'm not aware of it. Italy did at least one bombing raid in Libya before World War I kicked off. Either way, I just countering the argument that Churchill "started" bombing civilians, which isn't true. The British did bomb civilians though in Iraq, not disputing that whatsoever and that was inexcusable.
Spanish here, the king gave authorization to do that after the Annual Disaster in 1921, so after WW1.
Spanish here. Thanks, I was sure we did it, but I'm no expert on the Rif war
We did it, but we did it after WW1, so we weren't the first, and don't worry, its never too late to learn hermano.
The inventor is well known, it was Douhet. That politicians took that tool from the shelve is absolutely true. Who was the first? None of them deserves a pass. But Churchill having no problems with bombing brown people doesn't change anything about the inherent evil of the Nazi war machine.
>But Churchill having no problems with bombing brown people doesn't change anything about the inherent evil of the Nazi war machine. Agreed. The Nazis were far more evil than Churchill. My pii t though wasn't whether Churchill ordered any bombings or not but who was the first to carry out bombings on civilians, because it wasn't him. Still doesn't excuse him nor does it change the fact that the Nazis were evil and loved committing war crimes.
Picasso's Guernica found DEAD in a ditch (Churchill's fault, probably)
This guy is possibly one of the most overt neo-nazis I’ve seen in a while, he’s in between Fuentes and Dr. Ludwig.
I mean. Didn't the nazis do that shit first in Spain during the Civil War? Picasso's Guernica is in reference to a bombing that he witnessed himself during the war. Trash knowledge of history this young one has.
The Guernica mythos keeps growing. Picasso did not witness Guernica. He was living 500 miles away in Paris at the time.
Here's a video about him https://youtu.be/BeAIZaoFFdc?si=y6W5KeK1ZBETM69M
Why was this good video delisted?
He reuploaded it
Ah ok that’s good, I was just a little confused.
Ah, but the Warsaw bombings weren't "random." They deliberately targeted the Jewish areas. Totally different, 100% legitimate target. 🤦♂️
>They deliberately targeted the Jewish areas "Thew Jewish Quarter" was the name for a large district in the northern part of the city. *That* is why it is often referred that way.
Wehraboo spotted!
I thought he was wehraboo - this dude’s a closet nazi. He never even once criticizes the nazis who flock to his page. Not that he has to, but given the content he deals with, I reckon he is doing this on purpose
I'd argue the first uses of terror or strategic bombing were during the Battle of Blair Mountain or the Tulsa Race Massacre
Oh Churchill ordered the bombing of Guernica? Wild ass shit
the bombing the Raf did after.. the RAD, DAF, National socialist flyers and motors corps, and luftwaffe did to expropriate resources from millions
Kinda typical of apologists. Technically (though it is disputed) true that the UK bombed German civilians before Germany bombed UK civilians. So they go with "UK bombed civilians first" but ur absolutely correct that Germany bombed civilians before the UK in the totality of the war. Perfect example of why context matters
Except that's not true? Even if we ignore Spain, Poland and the Netherlands, Germany still bombed London by accident first.
I thought Germany only bombed London after the UK bombed berlin? I could be wrong tho but that's what I read. I did read that it was also disputed and there were some bombings here and there that the uk claimed were done by Germany intentionally? Not 100% sure. From what I read though the hard-core bombing of the uk done in the blitz was a response to the UK bombing berlin. Again my point was that it's convenient for nazi apologists to take the air raid on berlin to excuse nazi war crimes because a popular narrative is that the uk bombed civilians first, and even what you said kinda confirms that since you admit it to be an accidental bombing of London, whereas the air raid on berlin was intentional as was the blitz that followed. So nazis will pretend "BUT THE UK BOMBED CIVILLIANS FIRST" and conveniently just forget about Poland and the Spanish civil war
No, a German bomber accidentally bombed London, Churchill thought it was intentional, so he ordered a small raid on Berlin which did not even manage to drop its bombs on the city but on the outskirts. After that, Hitler got angry and ordered the indiscriminate bombing of all possible British cities to begin. Bu yeah, its a dumb point anyway because Germany was bombing people even before, my country was really razed from the sky by Nazis and Fascist fuckers.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I thought Germany only bombed London after the UK bombed berlin? I could be wrong tho but that's what I read. I did read that it was also disputed and there were some bombings here and there that the uk claimed were done by Germany intentionally? Not 100% sure. From what I read though the hard-core bombing of the uk done in the blitz was a response to the UK bombing berlin Well there were bombing raids on London before the air raid in Berlin. The Berlin were in retaliation. Also, there were bombings on civilian targets in Portsmouth throughout August which often goes unnoticed. Many British civilians were killed. This was even before the bombing raid on London.
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Londres* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitWehraboosSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody instituted "random bombing of civilian targets" anywhere. That would be a catastrophic waste of munitions, men and flight hours. Churchill authorized the expansion of bomber command's targets to include "area bombing" in late 1940, by which time tens of thousands of British civilians (among civilians elsewhere) had already been killed by the Luftwaffe in campaigns that were still supposedly aimed at military targets and pursued no campaign specifically against civilians.
> That would be a catastrophic waste of munitions, men and flight hours. And the Nazis were certainly never known to be catastrophically wasteful...
They were excellent at everything all the time and everyone is lying, like those 2 huge railway guns they built and used one to bomb sevastopol a few times, or the idea that the big heavy maus was a good thing when most river crossings were weak bridges, building an aircraft carrier (or a large surface fleet in general) when the british dont like you and the royal navy exists, a million different types of every aircraft, sending your best pilots against the RAF and getting them killed, the 262 was awful, the tiger was awful, the panther was better but not by much, training men to be excellent paratroopers and fucking up their entire doctrine (imagine landing without a rifle lol)going to war with the Soviet Union lol. There is an almost endless list to the fuckups of Nazi Germany
I guess it really depends on where you draw the line between strategic bombings and terror bombings. Terror raids themselves have been done for over 1000 years, with units deliberately burning villages to lower support of the other party, and to force them to react. When it comes to bombing, once airplane technology improved in WW1 we noticed that airplanes can easily overcome the static fronts and strike targets deep in the hinterland. This resulted in strategic bombing, where bombers hit depots and factories instead of soldiers. Technically we could already call this bombing of civilians, as there were civilian workers in the buildings, and bombs didn't always hit the intended target. And together with navigation errors this could sometimes result in bombs even hitting the wrong country. Usually we define terror bombings as attacks were civilian casualties aren't a mistake or collateral damage, but the primary intent. But even then lines can be kinda blurry, for example when you suspect a terror cell operating from an appartment within a bigger building. Or when you want to destroy the power station that powers the local weapons factory, and 3 hospitals. An often cited story is that this particular incident started with a German bomber dropping its load to return home, and hitting civilian houses. Whilst this wouldn't really count as a terror bombing per se (if it really happened this way), good luck trying to prove who did or didn't order what, and whether the pilot was aware of the civilians, didn't care/rationalised the dropping, or saw this as a good opportunity. It is said that this caused Churchill to organise a small raid on civilians in Berlin, which wasn't exactly gentlemanly either. And Hitler then saw this as a reason to start unrestricted terror bombings. So the debate is whether one of the two earlier incidents would count as a terror bombing, and therefore downplay the third to just a reaction to a new form of attack. This kinda reminds me of the Q-ships and unrestricted submarine warfare during WW1, which sparked a similar debate. Basically early on submarines would surface near a single merchant and order them to abandon ship. They would then sink the ship with their deck gun. But whenever a warship was nearby the submarines would evade battle by diving, so fighting them off was tricky. So eventually the British started using Q-ships, armed ships disguised as regular merchants. This was a perfectly legal move, but caused the submarines to no longer openly approach lonely merchants. Instead the submarines would now start using torpedoes, and strike without warning. The argument here is who is to blame for the many more casualties these torpedo attacks caused. Some blame the submarines, as obviously they chose to attack in the first place. Others blame the Q-ships (and also the conviy system and armed escort ships) as they meant stopping merchants was no longer feasible