Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

This is exceptionally foolish. Finding, something, anything to contradict
is an exercise on propaganda, it implies either no thought or a deliberate
attempt to try and distort the debate. On the internet you can find text to
say almost anything. Above all posting such text and then in the next post
denouncing it is plain stupid, why post material you think is wrong without
telling people of the fact? Why post the material at all?

Agreed. The original post I made was foolish and a knee-jerk response.
I am very new to posting, and I have learnt from my mistake. It will
not happen again, believe me!

Remarkable how so far we have the Germans busily following the
all rules of war almost to extremes and the Poles doing all the bad
things.

Any chance of a mention about what the SS was up to at the time?
Since claims of Polish atrocities were used as justification for
air strikes presumably claims of German atrocities can be used
in deciding not to surrender?

I do not, or never will have any intent on trying to portray the
Germans as the "good guys" as I am fully aware of the various and
abundant list of atrocities committed by the SS, and other Germans. It
was never my intention to make the Poles look evil and the Germans
good. It may look like that, but this is simply my fault for trying to
show that even the "good guys" did not always follow the "rules of
war." I was not trying to justify the German bombing of civilian
targets through the description of Polish atrocities. I am not someone
who would ever support any country knowingly bombing innocent
civilians. Your last point about the German attrocities being used in
deciding not to surrender is perfectly valid and I was only trying to
show in my previous posts that the Germans had in effect warned the
people of Warsaw of what was going to happen. In other words I only
wanted to address the event that took place, and not so much the
reasons they did take place and who made the decisions, etc.

I see no attempt to confirm or contradict the idea middle level officers,
the bomb group commanders, altered some of the targets. General
Richthofen had control of these strikes and he was definitely interested
in the idea of morale attacks.

I agree with you 100% on Richtoffen and I also agree that there is
some evidence supporting the fact that orders were possibly changed.

Warsaw had a pre war population of 2.5 million, trying to move
that many people in 12 hours would be quite a challenge. Then
comes finding that many people food, water and shelter.

You are right, I agree that this ultimatum was in know way practical
or even possible.

I understand the 18 September leaflets onward are on record as calling
for the city's surrender.

Agreed. I only wanted to bring to attention that the Luftwaffe had in
fact dropped leaflets of warning over Warsaw.

The Germans were busy ranging guns and flying smaller scale
air strikes before the mass raid, the bad weather meant the
air effort was lower. Both sides were preparing to fight.

Agreed. I am guilty of not mentioning this fact along with my original
post.

That the bombing attack included men shovelling incendiaries
out the door indicates claims of accurate strikes on purely military
targets are a joke.

True. I hope I did not come accross as claiming otherwise.

Until the Luftwaffe started using sea mines suspended under parachutes
and fragmentation bombs on England the reality is all air forces were
officially after military targets. It is also the case all air forces hoped for morale effects and were not too worried when bombs aimed at targets in
cities missed the target but hit the surrounding area.

In striking Rotterdam the Luftwaffe, as an institution, knew first hand from
Warsaw the probable results.

When the results came in about bombing accuracy the air forces simply
decided to keep up the city strikes, accepting the reality that the many
bombs that missed the official target would hit the surrounding areas,
and still hoping for a morale effect.

The sad truth, civilian lives do seem to lose a lot of value during
war. No arguements here about your comments.

On the web exists a body of fiction from the "Hitler was the good
guy" crowd. Simply claiming to repeat text found implies a major
lack of thought, are you responsible for the text you post, did you
search for it and make a choice selection? Someone who can quote
from several different books on WWII about the Polish campaign,
including day to day Luftwaffe operations, should be able to spot the
problems with an article that claims only 5 tons of bombs were
dropped in the raids for a start. You decided to include that text, no
one else.

Point taken, I apologize. I do feel embarassed at my mistake. The only
explanation I can give myself and you, is that I am only 22 and
learning rapidly that I need to think more about things before I react
to them.

You decided to drop in claims of a Polish atrocity, no one else.

See my response above. I was only trying to show that both "sides" in
a war are guilty to some extent of war crimes. That is I guess part of
the nature and brutality of any war.

You decided to quote David Irving as a source when anyone basically
familiar with WWII knows him to be unreliable, no one else.

My main interest is World War II, but I have to admit, until I quickly
quoted Mr. Irving off of the internet and you informed me of my
mistake, I did not even know of the situation surrounding his
reputation. I actually would like to thank you for bringing that fact
to my attention.

Either take responsibility for the text you post or stop posting. Above
all explain the contradiction between your day to day knowledge of
Luftwaffe operations and a willingness to post text that is clearly
wrong, based on that day to day knowledge.

I can assure you that I will take responsibility for the text I post,
and I hope that is the impression you have gotten. I will definately
not be posting anything until I check up on whatever the issue is in
much more detail that a quick search on Google! Waiting until I get
home to look in real books is probably the best way to deal with that.

Changing 600 tonnes of bombs to 5 tons is not reinterpretation.
Using David Irving as a source indicates a preference for fiction.
See Lying about Hitler (or Telling lies for Hitler) by Richard Evans,
who was a historian for the defence when David Irving sued for libel
and lost very badly.

Although it may look like I prefer fiction from how foolishly I have
posted, I assure you I only want to find out what truth is. I will
search for a copy of that book you describe as I am very interested in
reading it now.

Sincerely,
Ryan Muntener
Vancouver, Canada