Opinions wanted

Yes on the internet you can generally find a piece of text that is
wrong but suits the purpose.

I was merely using those references (if you can call them that since
they are off the WEB) to illustrate that there is a large grey area
when your discussing the bombing of Warsaw and the actual intentions
behind the bombings. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

13 September 1939, the Luftwaffe bombing of north Warsaw,
operation Wasserkante, 50 50 incendiary/high explosive mix,
targets may have included the ghetto. This raid had been
intended for 1 September as part of the initial strikes but delayed
to the second half of the day, then the second day. It was put
back on the agenda by the Luftwaffe as a reprisal for claimed
Polish crimes. On 11 September Hitler demanded Warsaw be
bombed on the 12th, a days delay was subsequently granted.
About 183 bomber sorties, there is evidence the middle ranking
officers changed some of the targets from those chosen by the
Generals to more military ones.

In addition, the daily Luftwaffe orders for this September 13th
operation repeated "Military Targets Only" and these targets were "to
be spared if situated in heavily populated city areas" (from the Sept.
2 Directive) These quotes are from the Luftwaffe War Diaries by Cajus
Bekker.

An interesting note on a war crime committed by the Poles are the
roughly 1000 Germans murdered by Polish troops on Sept. 3 in Blomberg,
in eastern Poland, who falsely claimed that they had been shot at. "An
estimated 13,000 Poles of German origin lost their lives in similar
circumstances." (pp.17 from A World In Flames, by Martin Kitchen)

25 September 1939, Luftwaffe attack on Warsaw although the
official targets were meant to be military, the attack method
included Ju52s with men literally shovelling incendiaries out
of the door. Some 40,000 Polish deaths in Warsaw with 10%
of buildings destroyed and 40% heavily damaged due to air
strikes. Note this second strike was so inaccurate some
incendiaries fell amongst the German troops whose
commander asked for the bombing to stop, Hitler ordered
them to carry on. The smoke from the fires was also hampering
the artillery. Some 1,150 bomber sorties dropping 560 tonnes
of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries on this day.

You should also mention that on September 16th, after attempts by a
German emissary for the Poles to give up, a dozen Heinkel He-111 from
I. Gruppe/KG 4 flew over Warsaw and dropped 1 million leaflets calling
for the population to exit the area through the eastern exits in 12
hours should their military commander fail to accept the ultimatum.
The next morning the Poles announced that they were sending an
emissary of their own to negotiate the evacuation of the Polish
citizens and hence the mass Luftwaffe raid planned for the 17th of
September did not take place. For whatever reason this negotiator did
not show up. The dropping of leaflets took place not only on the 16th
as mentioned above, but also on the 18th, 19th, 22nd, and 24th. During
all of this the roughly 100,000 Polish troops were setting up defences
within the city. It is at this point that the attack you accurately
portrayed took place.

In regards to the London bombing on Aug 24/25 I can only gather that
the targets for the night were the Rochester aircraft works, and the
oil tanks on the Thames. Obviously bombs fell on London, but it is
important to realize that the intent and orders for those operations
were not to attack cilivian targets. Goerings response (via
teleprinter signal) to the bomber squadrons the next morning are
recorded by the operations staff officer of KG1, Major Josef
Knobel..."It is to be reported forthwith which crews dropped bombs in
the London prohibited zone. The Supreme Commander reserves to himself
the personal punishment of the commanders concerned by remustering
them to the infantry."

None of this is my interpretation of the events. At this point I
regret two things:
1. Mentioning Warsaw and London in my response which was really only
to discuss the Rotterdam bombings.
2. The posting of the quick internet findings to illustrate that there
many different interpretations and articles which contradict
themselves not only on the Web but also on paper. It was not in any
way supposed to represent an attempt by me to portray the facts.

Sincerely,
Ryan Muntener

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
Ryan M. wrote in message ...

I'm sorry you were so offended by my statements. I only briefly
mentioned Warsaw as I did not have any good information at hand to
further clarify on it. And for this reason I should not have said that
there was house to house fighting in Warsaw, my mistake. I stuck
mostly with mentioning the conditions with the bombing of Rotterdam
instead. However, I understand that there are many sources that exist
which blatently contradict themselves on topics such as these. I would
still like to quote three sources I found with a quick search off the
internet.(no books as I am not at home to cite them)

1. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc...08-77-06.shtml

From the Nuremberg Trials...see link for more citation info:

Q. "You never saw any such reactions on their part on these bombings
[Warsaw, Rotterdam, and Coventry], I take it?"

A. "I only know that Warsaw was a fortress which was held by the
Polish Army in very great strength, provided with excellent pieces of
artillery, that the forts were manned, and that two or three times
Adolf Hitler announced that the city should be evacuated by civilians.
That was refused. Only the foreign embassies were evacuated, while an
officer with a flag of truce entered. The Polish Army was in the city
defending it stubbornly in a very dense circle of forts. The outer
forts were very strongly manned and, from the inner town, heavy
artillery was firing towards the outskirts. The fortress of Warsaw was
therefore attacked, also by the Luftwaffe, but only after Hitler's
ultimatum had been rejected."

How about this, a German General at the war crimes hearings
says he thought the air operations against Warsaw were military
only.

13 September 1939, the Luftwaffe bombing of north Warsaw,
operation Wasserkante, 50 50 incendiary/high explosive mix,
targets may have included the ghetto. This raid had been
intended for 1 September as part of the initial strikes but delayed
to the second half of the day, then the second day. It was put
back on the agenda by the Luftwaffe as a reprisal for claimed
Polish crimes. On 11 September Hitler demanded Warsaw be
bombed on the 12th, a days delay was subsequently granted.
About 183 bomber sorties, there is evidence the middle ranking
officers changed some of the targets from those chosen by the
Generals to more military ones.

Then for the siege of Warsaw,

Low cloud restricted operations on 23 September as the air
attacks began.

25 September 1939, Luftwaffe attack on Warsaw although the
official targets were meant to be military, the attack method
included Ju52s with men literally shovelling incendiaries out
of the door. Some 40,000 Polish deaths in Warsaw with 10%
of buildings destroyed and 40% heavily damaged due to air
strikes. Note this second strike was so inaccurate some
incendiaries fell amongst the German troops whose
commander asked for the bombing to stop, Hitler ordered
them to carry on. The smoke from the fires was also hampering
the artillery. Some 1,150 bomber sorties dropping 560 tonnes
of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries on this day.

Warsaw surrendered on 27 September.

2. http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchi...s_replies.html

Visit this link and scroll down to the area shaded in grey which
discusses the Luftwaffe attacks on Warsaw as well.

This is David Irving's web site, and a court has found him to be
a very unreliable historian, quoting him is a good way of giving
yourself zero credibility.

3. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...mbing/AP27.htm

Citations used for the writing of this WEB page on also found at the
link above:

"World War II began on September 1, 1939, in Poland when the German
Luftwaffe began to bomb military targets. When Warsaw continued to
fight, German leader Adolf Hitler approved the dropping of five tons
of bombs on the city, hastening Poland�s surrender. As German
tanks rolled through the rest of continental Europe, Hitler used the
example of the bombing of Warsaw to encourage submission. But with
minor exceptions, there were no more bombings of civilian targets on
either side. Hitler even released War Directive #2 that forbade
bombing attacks on France or England except as reprisals."

Yes on the internet you can generally find a piece of text that is
wrong but suits the purpose.

For example the article goes on to describe the German radio
navigation aids as radar guidance systems. It also repeats the
lone German bomber over London on 24/25 August 1940 myth,

"After dark on the 24th the attacks were stepped up, and
some 170 German aircraft ranged over England from the
borderland to Kent. Largely due to bad navigation bombers
directed to Rochester and the Thameshaven oil-tanks
dropped their loads on the City of London. For the first time
since the Gothas of 1918, Central London was damaged in
an air raid. Fires burned at London Wall, and boroughs like
Islington, Tottenham, Finsbury, Millwall, Stepney, East Ham,
Leyton, Coulsdon and Bethnel Green all received their share."

The Narrow Margin, Wood and Dempster.

The Peoples War by Angus Calder, notes "considerable fires".

Lot of damage by one bomber.

Flying well over 1,000 sorties over several days of strikes to drop
5 tons of bombs makes the Luftwaffe the most inefficient military
air force around. Just think what the army would make of that level
of support as it tried to attack the city.

The point of this respons is not to start an argument about this
topic, simply to let everyone know that I have read sources that
contradict what was stated by Keith in the prior post regarding
Rotterdam. We could all continue argueing by stating all the sources
which back up our opinion, but this is not my intention by any means.
History is the interpretation of the past and therefore will always be
dependant on how "we" as individuals interpret it.

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.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

Ryan M. wrote in message ...

I was merely using those references (if you can call them that since
they are off the WEB) to illustrate that there is a large grey area
when your discussing the bombing of Warsaw and the actual intentions
behind the bombings. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

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?

13 September 1939, the Luftwaffe bombing of north Warsaw,
operation Wasserkante, 50 50 incendiary/high explosive mix,
targets may have included the ghetto. This raid had been
intended for 1 September as part of the initial strikes but delayed
to the second half of the day, then the second day. It was put
back on the agenda by the Luftwaffe as a reprisal for claimed
Polish crimes. On 11 September Hitler demanded Warsaw be
bombed on the 12th, a days delay was subsequently granted.
About 183 bomber sorties, there is evidence the middle ranking
officers changed some of the targets from those chosen by the
Generals to more military ones.

In addition, the daily Luftwaffe orders for this September 13th
operation repeated "Military Targets Only" and these targets were "to
be spared if situated in heavily populated city areas" (from the Sept.
2 Directive) These quotes are from the Luftwaffe War Diaries by Cajus
Bekker.

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.

An interesting note on a war crime committed by the Poles are the
roughly 1000 Germans murdered by Polish troops on Sept. 3 in Blomberg,
in eastern Poland, who falsely claimed that they had been shot at. "An
estimated 13,000 Poles of German origin lost their lives in similar
circumstances." (pp.17 from A World In Flames, by Martin Kitchen)

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?

25 September 1939, Luftwaffe attack on Warsaw although the
official targets were meant to be military, the attack method
included Ju52s with men literally shovelling incendiaries out
of the door. Some 40,000 Polish deaths in Warsaw with 10%
of buildings destroyed and 40% heavily damaged due to air
strikes. Note this second strike was so inaccurate some
incendiaries fell amongst the German troops whose
commander asked for the bombing to stop, Hitler ordered
them to carry on. The smoke from the fires was also hampering
the artillery. Some 1,150 bomber sorties dropping 560 tonnes
of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries on this day.

You should also mention that on September 16th, after attempts by a
German emissary for the Poles to give up, a dozen Heinkel He-111 from
I. Gruppe/KG 4 flew over Warsaw and dropped 1 million leaflets calling
for the population to exit the area through the eastern exits in 12
hours should their military commander fail to accept the ultimatum.

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.

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

The next morning the Poles announced that they were sending an
emissary of their own to negotiate the evacuation of the Polish
citizens and hence the mass Luftwaffe raid planned for the 17th of
September did not take place. For whatever reason this negotiator did
not show up. The dropping of leaflets took place not only on the 16th
as mentioned above, but also on the 18th, 19th, 22nd, and 24th. During
all of this the roughly 100,000 Polish troops were setting up defences
within the city. It is at this point that the attack you accurately
portrayed took place.

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.

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

In regards to the London bombing on Aug 24/25 I can only gather that
the targets for the night were the Rochester aircraft works, and the
oil tanks on the Thames. Obviously bombs fell on London, but it is
important to realize that the intent and orders for those operations
were not to attack cilivian targets. Goerings response (via
teleprinter signal) to the bomber squadrons the next morning are
recorded by the operations staff officer of KG1, Major Josef
Knobel..."It is to be reported forthwith which crews dropped bombs in
the London prohibited zone. The Supreme Commander reserves to himself
the personal punishment of the commanders concerned by remustering
them to the infantry."

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.

None of this is my interpretation of the events. At this point I
regret two things:
1. Mentioning Warsaw and London in my response which was really only
to discuss the Rotterdam bombings.
2. The posting of the quick internet findings to illustrate that there
many different interpretations and articles which contradict
themselves not only on the Web but also on paper. It was not in any
way supposed to represent an attempt by me to portray the facts.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

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

Uzytkownik "Ryan M." napisal w wiadomosci
m...
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.


[snip...]

All this discussion is strange. Poles deserved, because they not surrended.
No, they didn't deserve. They didn't surrender because they knew about
German attrocities. No, they deserved. German attricities were because of
Polish attrocites... Jeeeez!!!

I cannot accept your explanation untill YOU accept what I wrote in one post
befo IF GERMANS WERE WORRIED ABOUT CIVILIANS THEY SIMPLY SHOULD NOT TO
INVADE POLAND! It was Third Reich who started this blooby war and I cannot
accept any assumption that German troops were 'not so bad guys' because they
dropped leaflets and warned people of Warsaw. They were bad by definition:
they were INVADERS! You would be right if Poland attacked Germany in 1939
and then was defeated, but this was not the truth - at least in this
universe where I live.

Sincerely,
Ryan Muntener
Vancouver, Canada

JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

PS. I am not a anti-German fanatic. German language was second foreign
language (after Russian) I learned in the school and I had some German
friends. I simply hate recent attempts to rewrite history in the
other-side-of-the-mirror manner.

(Ryan M.) wrote:


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

Ryan,
While I'm no expert on the 'issues' referred to above I note your
handling of criticism. That's the way to do it, so many would
have tried to bluster and justify their points. Much better to
realize their error as you've done. Excellent, you'll go far.
--

-Gord.

Ryan M. wrote in message ...

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.

We all have to start somewhere, a trap for anyone interested in WWII
is the attempts to write fictional histories making Hitler the good guy.
Then there are the usual poorly researched histories.

The real experts know expertise means continually learning, including
being able to admit and learn from mistakes. Congratulations on
passing the entrance examination to becoming an expert.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.