Opinions wanted

[ArtKramr]

I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be handled.
I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week or
so when many opinions have been offered.

There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
>
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
needed
> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
country
> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
Remember
> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?

FDR wasn't nice to the US Marshal's and that left him only the Italians,
being squeezed out of New York, for covert operations. (Clark County Ak) I
doubt there was much the US could do under FDR, in those conditions. There
was help in Sicily, but there was not the broad "invisible hand" that is
available to GW and once the founders.

[killfile]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
>
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
needed
> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
country
> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
Remember
> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?

I'd have offered them more for the gyros than the Germans could pay.

Matt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: "killfile"
>Date: 1/5/04 11:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
>would
>> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>handled.
>> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
>week or
>> so when many opinions have been offered.
>>
>> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
>devices
>> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>needed
>> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>country
>> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>Remember
>> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>I'd have offered them more for the gyros than the Germans could pay.
>
>Matt
>
>
Not a bad idea. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mycroft]

Would this country be Switzerland or some other Neutral by any chance? My
guess would diplomacy followed by threats then sabotage then if that failed
whoops our bombers strayed off course..

Myc


"killfile" > wrote in message
...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
> would
> > like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
> handled.
> > I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
> week or
> > so when many opinions have been offered.
> >
> > There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
> devices
> > for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a
very
> > populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their
families.
> > These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
> needed
> > skills, and without these workers production and quality would have
been
> > dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
> country
> > with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
> Remember
> > these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen
and
> > denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
> I'd have offered them more for the gyros than the Germans could pay.
>
> Matt
>
>

[Simon Robbins]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
<snip>

First off, the neutrality of the country should be questioned diplomatically
and openly if it is knowingly supplying war equipment to a hostile
government on either side. If the country refuses to stop the sales then
maybe it could be persuaded to re-tool to produce equipment for the
"friendly" powers, sanctions be put in place, supply lines targetted
exitting the country, or war declared as a last resort. Either way,
neutrality is forfeit if production continues.

You don't have to go too far to see this situation being played out all over
the world. Western governments (and the former USSR) routinely supply
weapons or components to countries engaged in hostilities with which they
themselves are not.

Si

[Alan Minyard]

On 05 Jan 2004 18:22:15 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be handled.
>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week or
>so when many opinions have been offered.
>
>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Well, first I would tell them to stop supplying the Nazis, and if they did not
I would declare war on them. Followed quickly by an aluminum overcast.

The fact that civilians lived in the area should have influence their
decision to maintain production, it should not be a factor
in the decision to eliminate the plant.

Al Minyard

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

ArtKramr wrote:
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
> devices for the German submarine service. It was located in the
> midst of a very populated area where the highly skilled workers lived
> with their families. These workers were near irreplaceable. It took
> many years to learn the needed skills, and without these workers
> production and quality would have been dramatically down graded. One
> more point. This factory was not in any country with which America or
> England was at war. What would you have done? Remember these German
> torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and denying
> food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?


Sabotage.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be handled.
>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week or
>so when many opinions have been offered.
>
>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?

I'd investigate the supply route those systems get to Germany by. Is it
along a sea route with anywhere convenient that RN destroyers could make
pointed inspections of neutral shipping, looking for and seizing war
materiel like torpedo gyroscopes? (You rarely get so lucky, but it's
worth checking)

Is there any political leverage that can be applied to persuade this
country to stop selling to a belligerent? (Or are we also buying
important precision components from them? That last confuses issues
badly and limits our more vehement options)

Can we outbid the Germans for those components? Good gyroscopes are
worth having with quite a lot of applications. US torpedoes are having
major depth-keeping problems until about 1944, can we get a solution
made there to keep those expensive neutral workers too busy to make
German components? And do these 'neutrals' make tumble-resistant
gyroscopes? I know there's at least one bombardier who'd really like one
for his Norden :)

Declaring war on them and bombing the hell out of the city district
where the factory sits is an option to consider, but may have more
problems than benefits.



Offhand I'd guess the factory was maybe in Switzerland, more likely
Sweden, and I think the eventual answer was to grit teeth, bear it, and
sink the U-boats so they never get to fire the torpedoes.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 1/5/2004 12:22 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>handled.
>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week
>or
>so when many opinions have been offered.
>
>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
>
>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>
I believe you are referring to Switzerland. The problem in questions was solved
by "accidentally" bombing a ball bearing (?) factory if memory serves.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 1/5/04 1:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>handled.
>>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week
>or
>>so when many opinions have been offered.
>>
>>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>needed
>>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>country
>>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>Remember
>>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>I'd investigate the supply route those systems get to Germany by. Is it
>along a sea route with anywhere convenient that RN destroyers could make
>pointed inspections of neutral shipping, looking for and seizing war
>materiel like torpedo gyroscopes? (You rarely get so lucky, but it's
>worth checking)
>
>Is there any political leverage that can be applied to persuade this
>country to stop selling to a belligerent? (Or are we also buying
>important precision components from them? That last confuses issues
>badly and limits our more vehement options)
>
>Can we outbid the Germans for those components? Good gyroscopes are
>worth having with quite a lot of applications. US torpedoes are having
>major depth-keeping problems until about 1944, can we get a solution
>made there to keep those expensive neutral workers too busy to make
>German components? And do these 'neutrals' make tumble-resistant
>gyroscopes? I know there's at least one bombardier who'd really like one
>for his Norden :)
>
>Declaring war on them and bombing the hell out of the city district
>where the factory sits is an option to consider, but may have more
>problems than benefits.
>
>
>
>Offhand I'd guess the factory was maybe in Switzerland, more likely
>Sweden, and I think the eventual answer was to grit teeth, bear it, and
>sink the U-boats so they never get to fire the torpedoes.
>
>--

Interesting set of options you offer. I think you will find the truth to be
beyond your wildlest dreams.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 1/5/04 2:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>Date: 1/5/2004 12:22 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>>handled.
>>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week
>>or
>>so when many opinions have been offered.
>>
>>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>needed
>>
>>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>country
>>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>Remember
>>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>>
>I believe you are referring to Switzerland. The problem in questions was
>solved
>by "accidentally" bombing a ball bearing (?) factory if memory serves.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Close but not quite there. Sorry. No Cigar. Besides no fair using your memory.
This is for guys who weren't there.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[steve gallacci]

A wild and wacky thought comes to mind, like arranging the the factory
to be "bombed" and the product is "destroyed" (shipped elsewhere) and
they are no longer able to produce more (at least for the Germans). I
don't know if the real thing is anything like that, but I have the
impression that some pretty implausible schemes were considered, and
even tried during the Big One. Or if the Allies couldn't buy them or
interdict them, perhaps they could encourage them to compromise quality
control? What can you do about contaminated bearings or not cleaning off
enough of the acid core solder residue....

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 1/5/2004 4:36 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>>From: (B2431)
>>Date: 1/5/04 2:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>>Date: 1/5/2004 12:22 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
>would
>>>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>>>handled.
>>>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week
>>>or
>>>so when many opinions have been offered.
>>>
>>>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
>devices
>>>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>>needed
>>>
>>>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>>country
>>>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>>Remember
>>>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>>
>>>
>>I believe you are referring to Switzerland. The problem in questions was
>>solved
>>by "accidentally" bombing a ball bearing (?) factory if memory serves.
>>
>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>Close but not quite there. Sorry. No Cigar. Besides no fair using your
>memory.
>This is for guys who weren't there.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS


Awww, you are no fun.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Simmsac]

>Subject: Opinions wanted
>From: (ArtKramr)

Hello Art, I would purchase the entire factory, if I couldn't do that I'd
purchase all of their produced munitions, then use or sell them as I saw fit .
AL

[Simon Robbins]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Close but not quite there. Sorry. No Cigar. Besides no fair using your
memory.
> This is for guys who weren't there.

How about infiltrate the civilian workforce in order to hamper production,
or lower reliability and effectiveness of the components?

Si

[Pete]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
>
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
needed
> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
country
> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
Remember
> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?

The resonse depends on the country, and its then-current ties and
affiliations. This one is handled differently from that one. Quite similar
to today's dilema regarding Iraq and N. Korea.

Pete

[Jack]

Send in the U.S. OSS or British MI6, let then take care of it on the ground.
Jack

--
E-Mail scanned prior to transmission by Norton AntiVirus
"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
>
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
needed
> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
country
> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
Remember
> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Hamish]

ArtKramr wrote:
:: I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II.
:: I would like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation
:: should be handled. I will give the real solutuion that was imposed
:: during the war after a week or so when many opinions have been
:: offered.
::
:: There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
:: devices for the German submarine service. It was located in the
:: midst of a very populated area where the highly skilled workers
:: lived with their families. These workers were near irreplaceable. It
:: took many years to learn the needed skills, and without these
:: workers production and quality would have been dramatically down
:: graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country with
:: which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
:: Remember these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and
:: British seamen and denying food and arms to England. What would you
:: have done? Opinions?
::
::
::
::
:: Arthur Kramer


The key to this factory's production is in it's highly skilled and
'irreplaceable workers'.
Remove these and the factory becomes just 'bricks and mortar'.
How many of these workers were in this highly skilled bracket? 10? 20?
How about
approaching them with an offer to relocate to the US of A with a Green
Card guarantee.
War torn Europe was no place to be even in a neutral country.
Second option..............kidnap them and remove to 'internment' till
war end.

[Bob McKellar]

Jack wrote:

> Send in the U.S. OSS or British MI6, let then take care of it on the ground.
> Jack
>
> --
> E-Mail scanned prior to transmission by Norton AntiVirus
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
> would
> > like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
> handled.
> > I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
> week or
> > so when many opinions have been offered.
> >
> > There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
> devices
> > for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> > populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
> > These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
> needed
> > skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
> > dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
> country
> > with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
> Remember
> > these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
> > denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >

Send in James Baker to offer the manufacturer a "Bunch" of US money to halt
production. Hw will be accompanied by Neil Bush to collect a commission.

Oops - Wrong Century!

Bob McKellar

[Larry]

> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.

A few well placed LGB's during lunch hour?


(¯`·._.· £ãrrÿ ·._.·´¯)



"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
>
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
needed
> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
country
> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
Remember
> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[fudog50]

Today? A coupla TLAMS would do just fine, (during non-shift hours).
Back then? Send in Lee Marvin and the "Dirty Dozen"!!!

On 05 Jan 2004 18:22:15 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be handled.
>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week or
>so when many opinions have been offered.
>
>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>>From: "killfile"
>>Date: 1/5/04 11:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
>>would
>>> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>>handled.
>>> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a
>>week or
>>> so when many opinions have been offered.
>>>
>>> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
>>devices
>>> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>>needed
>>> skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>>country
>>> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>>Remember
>>> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>>
>>I'd have offered them more for the gyros than the Germans could pay.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
> Not a bad idea. (grin)

The Allies actually did something like that. One bit of intelligence
fallout after the Schweinfurt raids was that the Germans were getting
a lot of ball bearing from Sweden. The Brits (And possibley the
U.S. as well), set up an operation to buy Swedish ball bearings and
fly them to Britain.

They were flown out a ton at a time in BOAC marked and crewed
Mosquitos.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mark and Kim Smith]

ArtKramr wrote:

>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be handled.
>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week or
>so when many opinions have been offered.
>
>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>

Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.

[tadaa]

> Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
> confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
> you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.

So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
everyone that happens to live in that city.
If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration of
war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied war
effort?
Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
example.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

tadaa wrote:

>>Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
>>confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
>>you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.
>>
>>
>
>So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
>legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
>everyone that happens to live in that city.
>If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration of
>war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied war
>effort?
>Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
>example.
>
>
>
I'm not saying they were legal targets or not. I'm just giving the
"extremely" short story of Schaffhausen.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>Date: 1/6/04 10:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>tadaa wrote:
>
>>>Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
>>>confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
>>>you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
>>legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
>>everyone that happens to live in that city.
>>If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration of
>>war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied war
>>effort?
>>Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
>>example.
>>
>>
>>
>I'm not saying they were legal targets or not. I'm just giving the
>"extremely" short story of Schaffhausen.
>

You peeked. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mark and Kim Smith]

ArtKramr wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>>Date: 1/6/04 10:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>
>>tadaa wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
>>>>confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
>>>>you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
>>>legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
>>>everyone that happens to live in that city.
>>>If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration of
>>>war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied war
>>>effort?
>>>Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
>>>example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm not saying they were legal targets or not. I'm just giving the
>>"extremely" short story of Schaffhausen.
>>
>>
>>
>
>You peeked. (grin)
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>

Yeesh! It wasn't easy Art! It took a couple of hours and my monitor
burned holes in my eyeballs, but cheat I did!

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>>I'm not saying they were legal targets or not. I'm just giving the
>>"extremely" short story of Schaffhausen.
>
>You peeked. (grin)

Sounds more Swiss than Swedish. Other than that I'm going to be a good
boy and play by Art's rules - it's a good game and I don't want to spoil
it.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Robert Briggs]

tadaa wrote:

> So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
> legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
> everyone that happens to live in that city.
> If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration of
> war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied
> war effort?
> Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
> example.

Well, the Hun *did* bomb substantial parts of British cities to rubble.

Outside London, Coventry and Liverpool spring readily to mind.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 1/6/04 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>>>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>>>I'm not saying they were legal targets or not. I'm just giving the
>>>"extremely" short story of Schaffhausen.
>>
>>You peeked. (grin)
>
>Sounds more Swiss than Swedish. Other than that I'm going to be a good
>boy and play by Art's rules - it's a good game and I don't want to spoil
>it.
>
>--

Right ! Never spoil the fun.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[tadaa]

> > So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your
workforce
> > legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
> > everyone that happens to live in that city.
> > If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration
of
> > war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied
> > war effort?
> > Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
> > example.
>
> Well, the Hun *did* bomb substantial parts of British cities to rubble.
>
> Outside London, Coventry and Liverpool spring readily to mind.

So were London, Coventry and Liverpool neutral countries?

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II.
I would
> like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should
be handled.
> I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after
a week or
> so when many opinions have been offered.
>
> There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
devices
> for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a
very
> populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their
families.
> These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn
the needed
> skills, and without these workers production and quality would
have been
> dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in
any country
> with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
Remember
> these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British
seamen and
> denying food and arms to England. What would you have done?
Opinions?

Should Germany have been bombing the USA for supplying arms to the UK
prior to 1942?
Should Germany have been targeting the US destroyers secretly
escorting UK convoys for nearly 1 year prior to war?

It seems to me you bomb a neutral country if you can get away with it
and the USA could get away with it. Whereas Germany was desperatly
trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.

The rest is just a moralising fog to hide double standards.

Most of the raids on Switzerland (Nearly 100) were for the usual
reasons: the bombers got lost and bombed the wrong city in the wrong
country.

Switzerland was pretty steadfastly neutral in most cases. In this
instance of the "torpedo timers" it may have simply been a case of
surreptious deals between private companies the Swiss government was
not aware of or even warned of.



>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 1/6/04 2:16 PM Pacific

>Whereas Germany was desperatly
>trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.

Not from where I sat they weren't.
Where the hell were you sitting?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: "The Enlightenment"

<snip>

Whereas Germany was desperatly
>trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.

Then why did Germany declare war on the United States 11 December 1941?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Gene Storey]

> The rest is just a moralising fog to hide double standards.

So why ask for opinions ****-stick?

[steve gallacci]

B2431 wrote:
>
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
>
> <snip>
>
> Whereas Germany was desperatly
> >trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.
>
> Then why did Germany declare war on the United States 11 December 1941?
>
to no small part, because the Germans had an agreement with the
Japanese. But regarding the German desire to avoid the issue, that is
very true, as there had been several incidents, including a sunken US
Destroyer and at least one sunken U-boat, that the Germans and the US
could have used to declare war on each other before then.

[Keith Willshaw]

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...

>
> So were London, Coventry and Liverpool neutral countries?
>
>

No but Holland was and that didnt prevent Rotterdam being bombed
by the Luftwaffe

Keith

[L'acrobat]

"steve gallacci" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> B2431 wrote:
> >
> > >From: "The Enlightenment"
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Whereas Germany was desperatly
> > >trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.
> >
> > Then why did Germany declare war on the United States 11 December 1941?
> >
> to no small part, because the Germans had an agreement with the
> Japanese.

The Germans had no agreement that required them to declare war on any
country that Japan attacked.

[The Enlightenment]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
>
> <snip>
>
> Whereas Germany was desperatly
> >trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.
>
> Then why did Germany declare war on the United States 11 December 1941?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Prior to this not only was the USA trading extensively with the UK
(understandable) but was supplying the UK with vast amounts of arms
and munitions. (Many were wheeled across the border to Canada
however)

The USA not only supplied arms but Roosvelt had the USN escort the
Convoys with destroyers which protected then against the German navy.
U boats were being attacked and sunk.

Roosvelt did everything short of basing US forces in British soil to
provok the Germans and this at a time when most Americans were for
being steadfastly neutral.

The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html

Under the terms of the armistice of 1917 the naval and trade blockade
was to be immediatly lifted against Germany. Inorder to force Germany
into harsh terms the terms of the armistice were violated. In that
period over 1 million Germans starved to death. That leaves a lasting
impression. The convoy war was nothing in comparison to this.

[The Enlightenment]

Robert Briggs > wrote in message >...
> tadaa wrote:
>
> > So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
> > legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
> > everyone that happens to live in that city.
> > If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration of
> > war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied
> > war effort?
> > Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
> > example.
>
> Well, the Hun *did* bomb substantial parts of British cities to rubble.

Rubbish. Both quantitatively and qualitatively. All has industrial
targets, radio naviagation aids were used.

[The Enlightenment]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
> >Date: 1/6/04 2:16 PM Pacific
>
> >Whereas Germany was desperatly
> >trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.
>
> Not from where I sat they weren't.
> Where the hell were you sitting?

Maybe you were reading the New York Times? A very Biased rag.

"At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine.
<Cf.> Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty"

[Greg Hennessy]

On 8 Jan 2004 06:10:02 -0800, (The Enlightenment)
wrote:


>The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism
>http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html


"A journal of nationalist thought and opinion"

Yeah right. Next you'll be telling us all to 'prove me wrong' (sic).


>
>Under the terms of the armistice of 1917 the naval and trade blockade
>was to be immediatly lifted against Germany.

What armistice of 1917 ?

>Inorder to force Germany
>into harsh terms the terms of the armistice were violated. In that
>period over 1 million Germans starved to death. That leaves a lasting
>impression.

The only lasting impression left around here is the ever more increasing
depths you plumb to peddle nazi revisionism.


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: (The Enlightenment)
>Date: 1/8/04 6:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>> >From: "The Enlightenment"
>> >Date: 1/6/04 2:16 PM Pacific
>>
>> >Whereas Germany was desperatly
>> >trying to avoid confrontation with the USA.
>>
>> Not from where I sat they weren't.
>> Where the hell were you sitting?
>
>Maybe you were reading the New York Times? A very Biased rag.

No. I was sitting in the nose of a bomber over Germany and taking all the ****
the Nazi *******s could throw at me. If all you know is what you read in the
papers you know nothing as your posts indicate.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: (The Enlightenment)
>Date: 1/8/04 6:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Robert Briggs > wrote in message
>...
>> tadaa wrote:
>>
>> > So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your workforce
>> > legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and basically
>> > everyone that happens to live in that city.
>> > If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before decleration
>of
>> > war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding the allied
>> > war effort?
>> > Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that, but that is just an
>> > example.
>>
>> Well, the Hun *did* bomb substantial parts of British cities to rubble.
>
>Rubbish. Both quantitatively and qualitatively. All has industrial
>targets, radio naviagation aids were used.


Tell that to the thousands of woman and children bombed out of their homes in
residential areas by the Nazi *******s.
The image you project of ethical humane Nazis leaves much to be questioned.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Alan Minyard]

On 06 Jan 2004 05:51:44 EST, Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:

>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I would
>>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be handled.
>>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week or
>>so when many opinions have been offered.
>>
>>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing devices
>>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the needed
>>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any country
>>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done? Remember
>>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>>
>
>Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
>confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
>you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.

They are selling war material to the Nazis, why bother to be "nice". Just
destroy the factory and the workers.

Al Minyard

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: Alan Minyard
>Date: 1/8/04 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 06 Jan 2004 05:51:44 EST, Mark and Kim Smith >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
>would
>>>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>handled.
>>>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week
>or
>>>so when many opinions have been offered.
>>>
>>>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
>devices
>>>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>needed
>>>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>country
>>>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>Remember
>>>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
>>confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
>>you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.
>
>They are selling war material to the Nazis, why bother to be "nice". Just
>destroy the factory and the workers.
>
>Al Minyard

Al you are my kind of guy. Once a bombardier, always a bombardier (grin)





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: Alan Minyard

>
>On 06 Jan 2004 05:51:44 EST, Mark and Kim Smith >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>>I am going to outline a real situaitoin that occured during WW II. I
>would
>>>like to hear opinions and solutions as to how the situation should be
>handled.
>>>I will give the real solutuion that was imposed during the war after a week
>or
>>>so when many opinions have been offered.
>>>
>>>There was a large factory producing torpedo gyroscopes and timeing
>devices
>>>for the German submarine service. It was located in the midst of a very
>>>populated area where the highly skilled workers lived with their families.
>>>These workers were near irreplaceable. It took many years to learn the
>needed
>>>skills, and without these workers production and quality would have been
>>>dramatically down graded. One more point. This factory was not in any
>country
>>>with which America or England was at war. What would you have done?
>Remember
>>>these German torpedoes were slaughtering American and British seamen and
>>>denying food and arms to England. What would you have done? Opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bomb 'em, claim it's an accident, blame it on weather, inexperience,
>>confusion and other stuff. Offer lots of cash as reparations. Tell 'em
>>you'll make a "no bomb" zone that you'll try to stick to.
>
>They are selling war material to the Nazis, why bother to be "nice". Just
>destroy the factory and the workers.
>
>Al Minyard
>

The Swiss may have been officially neutral, but they laundered Nazi gold,
allowed rail shipment of POWS and Jews through their country etc.

In my opinion any good the Swiss did during the war, and they did quite a bit,
is more than negated by enabling the Nazis to continue fighting by laundering
gold and by denying holocaust survivors access to their own moneys after the
war.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ryan M.]

The Germans made efforts to avoid bombing Warsaw and Rotterdam from
the historical documents I have read. Rotterdam for example, was being
used as a defensive position by the allies and there was actual house
to house combat taking place in the city. The germans used the threat
of aerial bombardment much like nuclear weapons are used today, as a
bargaining tool. In the case of Rotterdam, the Germans were demanding
the surrender of the defending forces. The allied forces, after
waiting much too long, did not sue for surrender terms until the
German bombers were well on their way to target. In any case, the
German bombers could not be called back in time by radio, and the use
of red flares by the ground forces to signal the bombers not to drop
were only partially successful as they were hard to see in the already
smokey and burning city. (due to the fact that the city was a combat
zone) In fact, a large number of the bombers were able to avoid
dropping their bombs when their bombardiers saw that red flares were
being shot into the air. So in fact, the Germans had made many efforts
to avoid attacking Rotterdam. Warsaw and Rotterdam were both cities
that were bombed because of the fact that the defending troops had
bunkered themselves down in the city itself. How can anyone do that
and not expect to be attacked as strictly a military target. In fact,
Germany made every effort not to attack any civilian targets over
Britain until one of their Heinkel He-111 accidentally dropped its
bombs over parts of London i believe and the British in turn decided
to bomb Berlin in a reprisal raid. This is what sparked the beginning
of the "Blitz" and the subsequent bombing of major cities by both
sides.

To Art's original question, I would have to assume that all
diplomatic avenues take place to stop production, and then covert
operations to sabotage the plant be taken. If those were all
unsuccessfull, and assuming the threat of bombardement was stated in
the diplomatic exchanges, I would opt for a highly accurate
dive-bombing strike by a select group of experienced dive-bomber
pilots, and under heavy fighter escort. The use of level bombers
during World War II such as the B-17, B-24, etc. on urban centers, has
always been a very controversial topic due to their inherent lack of
accuracy during WWII and the subsequent collatoral damages caused by
area bombardment. The question is, when is it OK to knowingly and
willingly bomb unarmed and defencless civilians? That kind of question
you could discuss for ever as well.

P.S. Art, I know your probably going to attack me as some kind of Nazi
apologetic *******, but I understand why you feel the way you do and I
will respect you all the same for the service you provided for your
country and mine by fighting against the Axis forces.

Sincerely,
Ryan Muntener


"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "tadaa" > wrote in message ...
>
> >
> > So were London, Coventry and Liverpool neutral countries?
> >
> >
>
> No but Holland was and that didnt prevent Rotterdam being bombed
> by the Luftwaffe
>
> Keith

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
> >From: (The Enlightenment)
> >Date: 1/8/04 6:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Robert Briggs > wrote in message
> >...
> >> tadaa wrote:
> >>
> >> > So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your
workforce
> >> > legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and
basically
> >> > everyone that happens to live in that city.
> >> > If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before
decleration
> >of
> >> > war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding
the allied
> >> > war effort? Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that,
but that is
> >> >just an example.
> >>
> >> Well, the Hun *did* bomb substantial parts of British cities to
rubble.
> >
> >Rubbish. Both quantitatively and qualitatively. All had industrial
> >targets, radio navigation aids were used.
>
>
> Tell that to the thousands of woman and children bombed out of their
homes in
> residential areas by the Nazi *******s.
> The image you project of ethical humane Nazis leaves much to be
questioned.
>

The Luftwaffe Pilots had the same ethics and concerns as you did. No
insult intended.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 1/8/04 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>> >From: (The Enlightenment)
>> >Date: 1/8/04 6:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Robert Briggs > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> tadaa wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > So selling weapons/weapon parts to conflicts makes you and your
>workforce
>> >> > legal targets? Well actually the workforce, their families and
>basically
>> >> > everyone that happens to live in that city.
>> >> > If Germany would have bombed cities in USA to rubble before
>decleration
>> >of
>> >> > war you would have accepted it because, hey there were aiding
>the allied
>> >> > war effort? Obviously Germany didn't have capacity for that,
>but that is
>> >> >just an example.
>> >>
>> >> Well, the Hun *did* bomb substantial parts of British cities to
>rubble.
>> >
>> >Rubbish. Both quantitatively and qualitatively. All had industrial
>> >targets, radio navigation aids were used.
>>
>>
>> Tell that to the thousands of woman and children bombed out of their
>homes in
>> residential areas by the Nazi *******s.
>> The image you project of ethical humane Nazis leaves much to be
>questioned.
>>
>
>The Luftwaffe Pilots had the same ethics and concerns as you did. No
>insult intended.
>

Not quite. The Luftwafe pilots were there to carry out the Nazi goal of
enslaving europe.We were there to liberate Europe. Hardly the same thing.

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: (Ryan M.)
>Date: 1/8/04 3:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>P.S. Art, I know your probably going to attack me as some kind of Nazi
>apologetic *******, but I understand why you feel the way you do and I
>will respect you all the same

Nope. No attack. Have a nice day. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Drazen Kramaric]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:47:14 -0000, "Simon Robbins"
> wrote:


>First off, the neutrality of the country should be questioned diplomatically
>and openly if it is knowingly supplying war equipment to a hostile
>government on either side.

Neutral status does not preclude the trade with the belligerents.
Neutral country can freely choose with whom it is going to trade.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply

[Drazen Kramaric]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:18:13 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:


>No but Holland was and that didnt prevent Rotterdam being bombed
>by the Luftwaffe

By the time Rotterdam was bombed, Netherlands was no more a neutral
country. The German invasion (without declaration of war) was already
taking place.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply

[Keith Willshaw]

"Drazen Kramaric" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:18:13 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >No but Holland was and that didnt prevent Rotterdam being bombed
> >by the Luftwaffe
>
> By the time Rotterdam was bombed, Netherlands was no more a neutral
> country. The German invasion (without declaration of war) was already
> taking place.
>

Which was rather my point

Keith

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Ryan M." > napisal w wiadomosci
m...
> The Germans made efforts to avoid bombing Warsaw and Rotterdam from
> the historical documents I have read.

I don't know what kind of historical documents you cite, but they are not
true - at least in Warsaw case. WWII began 1. September 1939 at 4:45 am
Warsaw time. Polish cities (including Warsaw) were bombed from the first day
with He-111 and later (as the front moved) Ju-87. First German troops
achieved Warsaw neigbarhood on 8. September, so between 1. and 8. September
Warsaw WAS NOT defended, because WAS NOT directly attacked. Maybe I should
read your statement 'IF Poland would have been surrended on 1. September
till 5:00 am THEN Warsaw were not bombed'. Sorry, I could not share your
point.

> Rotterdam for example, was being
> used as a defensive position by the allies and there was actual house
> to house combat taking place in the city.

In 1939 Warsaw was not defended house to house. The city suffered damages
and surrended on 28. September. Wounds were deep but Warsaw was still alive.
House to house combat took place in 1943 (19. April-8. May; Warsaw Ghetto
Uprising), in 1944 (1. August-2. October; Warsaw Uprising) and 1945 (17.
January; liberation of Warsaw). German aerial attacks were limited to dive
bombing (in other case they could hit their own troops). After that Warsaw
was 80% destroyed.

[snip...]

> Warsaw and Rotterdam were both cities
> that were bombed because of the fact that the defending troops had
> bunkered themselves down in the city itself.

About Warsaw - see above.

[snip...]

> Sincerely,
> Ryan Muntener

I hate to tell you that you are not alone. Many 'historicians' claimed
recently that Poland (and Holland in this case) were guilty by themselves
that were attacked. Strange thinking, indeed... If Germans were worried
about destroying Warsaw (Rotterdam, London etc.) THEY COULD SIMPLY NOT TO
INVADE POLAND!!

NO regards, EOT
JasiekS [Jan Skowronski]
Warsaw, Poland

[Ryan M.]

Hello Jan,

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/tgmwc-08/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."

2. http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Hitchens_replies.html

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

3. http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/Bombing/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."


You wrote:
> I hate to tell you that you are not alone. Many 'historicians' claimed
> recently that Poland (and Holland in this case) were guilty by themselves
> that were attacked. Strange thinking, indeed... If Germans were worried
> about destroying Warsaw (Rotterdam, London etc.) THEY COULD SIMPLY NOT TO
> INVADE POLAND!!

I never said I believe the Polish were guilty themselves of being
attacked and could not agree with you more that if Hitler had not
invaded Poland the bombing of Warsaw would not have happened. However
I was not and am not trying to debate if Germany should have or should
not have invaded Poland.

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.

Finally,

You wrote:
> NO regards, EOT
> JasiekS [Jan Skowronski]
> Warsaw, Poland

I'm not sure why you would write "NO regards" but I will end my
response...

WITH regards,
Ryan Muntener
Vancouver, Canada


"JasiekS" > wrote in message >...
> Uzytkownik "Ryan M." > napisal w wiadomosci
> m...
> > The Germans made efforts to avoid bombing Warsaw and Rotterdam from
> > the historical documents I have read.
>
> I don't know what kind of historical documents you cite, but they are not
> true - at least in Warsaw case. WWII began 1. September 1939 at 4:45 am
> Warsaw time. Polish cities (including Warsaw) were bombed from the first day
> with He-111 and later (as the front moved) Ju-87. First German troops
> achieved Warsaw neigbarhood on 8. September, so between 1. and 8. September
> Warsaw WAS NOT defended, because WAS NOT directly attacked. Maybe I should
> read your statement 'IF Poland would have been surrended on 1. September
> till 5:00 am THEN Warsaw were not bombed'. Sorry, I could not share your
> point.
>
> > Rotterdam for example, was being
> > used as a defensive position by the allies and there was actual house
> > to house combat taking place in the city.
>
> In 1939 Warsaw was not defended house to house. The city suffered damages
> and surrended on 28. September. Wounds were deep but Warsaw was still alive.
> House to house combat took place in 1943 (19. April-8. May; Warsaw Ghetto
> Uprising), in 1944 (1. August-2. October; Warsaw Uprising) and 1945 (17.
> January; liberation of Warsaw). German aerial attacks were limited to dive
> bombing (in other case they could hit their own troops). After that Warsaw
> was 80% destroyed.
>
> [snip...]
>
> > Warsaw and Rotterdam were both cities
> > that were bombed because of the fact that the defending troops had
> > bunkered themselves down in the city itself.
>
> About Warsaw - see above.
>
> [snip...]
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Ryan Muntener
>
> I hate to tell you that you are not alone. Many 'historicians' claimed
> recently that Poland (and Holland in this case) were guilty by themselves
> that were attacked. Strange thinking, indeed... If Germans were worried
> about destroying Warsaw (Rotterdam, London etc.) THEY COULD SIMPLY NOT TO
> INVADE POLAND!!
>
> NO regards, EOT
> JasiekS [Jan Skowronski]
> Warsaw, Poland

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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/tgmwc-08/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/Churchill/Hitchens_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/essay/Air_Power/Bombing/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.

[a.d.danilecki]

I have to add only that Warsaw was not the only Polish city bombed.
First city bombed was Wielun, totally undefended small city, and first
target was hospital with huge painted red cross on it. Great
paactising target for Luftwaffe pilots. I happened in early morning of
1939.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
>From: "Geoffrey Sinclair"
>Date: 1/16/04 11:03 PM Pacific

> 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.

Proof bombing works. And if Germany had long range heavy bombers and fighters
they may have well bombed England into sueing for peace. We should all be
greatful for Germany's short sightedness,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ryan M.]

> 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/tgmwc-08/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/Churchill/Hitchens_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/essay/Air_Power/Bombing/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.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

[Ryan 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.

> 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

[JasiekS]

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
before: 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.

[[email protected]]

(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.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.