Research IV - Boom: World War II

[WebbPA]

Brensec,

I stand corrected.  The Battle of Britain "officially" extended from July 1940 through October 1940.  A brief Google search uncovered a "heavy" air raid on London in May, 1941, but nothing thereafter.

The same search also uncovered an RAF air raid on Bremen in June 1942, well before my original guestimate of 1943.

Source: http://www.decades.com/Timeline/n/955.htm

But did the Luftwaffe have the ability in 1940-1941 to deliver the firepower necessary to create a firestorm in England, if they even knew how?

[Professor Brensec]

No prob, Webb. I've learnt more in these pages in 18 months than I did the previous 30 years..........lol

The 'official London Blitz' went from Sepy 7th 1940 to May 11th 1941. Why I don't know, but the web site claims that London was bombed 'almost' every night for that 8 months, and thereafter also.

Anyway, in answer to your question, I don't have exact figures, but I'm sure that the 8th Airforce and Bomber Command (with their huge 4 engine jobs) would have had a far greater capacity to drop the huge loads required for a firestorm to result.
The German bombers were, almost without exception, twin engine, and could only carry relatively small loads, compared to the Lanc and B17. I don't think they had the numbers, even in the earlier years, that the combined US and RAF  had, once they were established.  ;D

[WebbPA]

I've only been to London once, about 10 years ago, but the Victorian-era buildings were massive block structures, not very prone to catch fire.  I couldn't say what outlying building construction in the '40s would have been.

That brings up another point I made earlier - military blunders.  IF the Luftwaffe had kept up its bombing of England it is very possible that England would have capitulated.

What idiot (Hitler) would start a second front when the first front was on the verge of defeat?  His generals warned him in 1939 that there was no way Germany would win a two front war.

[Scorpiоn]

Which is what puzzles me when people say, "Hitler was evil but smart."  In my little opinion, he was nothing more than a complex man who was in the right place in the right time, and above all, a pitiful strategist.

[Professor Brensec]

As has been discussed and acknowledged by most here, in the past. That fateful day Sept 7th, when Hitler decided to change tactics to bombing of cities (London particularly) rather than continue the attacks on the airfields, was the luckiest day in the war for Britain.

The RAF was on it's last legs. It couldn't have kept up for much longer. It's facilities were a shambles from the continual attacks, moral was at rock bottom, pilot shortages were critical, the existing pilots were exhausted and fighter availablility was at it's lowest.

Some say that another two weeks and the RAF would have been defeated.

That of course, certainly didn't mean surrender, but it would have been a certain prelude to the planned invasion.
I personally, don't know what would have happened, but it's certain, that without the RAF and a 'jump-off' point for the eventual invasion of Europe, the war would have gone on for much longer.

The US certainly wouldn't have had the 'staging area' in Britain that it had, so consequently the North African and Mediteranian theatres would have been a different kettle of fish. Italy would have been the only way to Germany, and we know how slow and arduous that was in reality. The bombing of the Reich would have been impossible from the south, at least in the numbers that were involved from Britain.`

I know it's all History now but they were very lucky indeed that Hitler did that, for whatever reason.  ;D

[Hagar]

After a quick punt round I'm surprised at the lack of information on the web concerning the London Blitz. I'm sure my late father, as a member of the Auxiliary Fire Service throughout WWII, would have different views if he were still alive. I did find this which gives some idea of how serious it really was.
http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/meltingpot/oxford/330/arp/arp4.html
[quote]On September 7, 1940, the commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe (German air force), Hermann G

[OTTOL]

Which is what puzzles me when people say, "Hitler was evil but smart."  In my little opinion, he was nothing more than a complex man who was in the right place in the right time, and above all, a pitiful strategist.

I'm no Hitler fan by any means, but if you read about the way he manipulated the weaker governments around him(including his own) during the late 30's, his political battle sense, WAS a force to be reckoned with! Fortunately for the rest of the free world, his military COMMON sense wasn't as good. He made major military moves based on his pride, and not through any analytical process.  ;)

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]I've only been to London once, about 10 years ago, but the Victorian-era buildings were massive block structures, not very prone to catch fire.

[Professor Brensec]

Speculations? Well, I think you're right in saying that the Germans would have taken Moscow and even Stalingrad and Leningrad, if the offensive had started two months earlier. The Russian winter and the complete unsuitability of the German equipment and German soldier were the reason for their getting so 'booged down' and those 3 cities no being completely taken.

But again, I don't think the taking of these cities would have resulted in a Russian surrender or even negotiations.

The Germans had outrun their supply lines. They weren't getting anywhere near the supplies they needed to hold those cities, if they had captured them.
The Russians had vast areas of territory to retreat to and regroup. They had an unending supply of manpower and soldiers. They had still good raw materials in Siberia plus supplies from the Americans and British. The war would have gone on longer but I still think the Germans would eventually have been defeated.

The Russians moved all their manufacturing facilities out of German bomber range, and they would have done this regardles of the fate of Moscow etc.

No the war would still have been won in the East. It would just have taken longer.

[WebbPA]

Operation Barbarossa "should have" taken 6 weeks.  The Russians didn't cooperate.  The Russian winter defeated Hitler just as it defeated Napoleon - the Russians knew it would.

Stalingrad "should have" taken a couple of weeks.  It lasted more than 6 months and 2 million (yes, million) dead.  Stalin would not allow the city with his name to be taken and Hitler was equally determined to take it.

Hitler could never defeat Russia and I don't think he ever planned to.  He claimed that he just wanted "lebensrum", living room,  a few thousand miles east.  How many thousands of miles we will never know.  He was so violently anti-Communist that he probably would not have been satisfied until Germany's eastern borders reached Japan's western borders.  Woe to Japan at that time.

[Smoke2much]

IF the Luftwaffe had kept up its bombing of England it is very possible that England would have capitulated.

I actually find that comment quite offensive.  

Would (will) the US capitulate under it's current bombing threat?  I think not.  It would have taken the the armed occupation of every town, city, village, hamlet and pub in the whole of the British isles to keep the noise down, and the resistance movement whould have made the French resistance look like a teddy bears picnic.

The reason that Churchill's speech "We will fight them on the beaches." Was so memorable was because it captured the spirit of this group of Island nations so well.  Men like Hitler can threaten, bluster and hurt us, but we will always win in the end.

Will

[Professor Brensec]

As Webb says, the Russians didn't have a copy of Hitler's script.............

The casualties on the Eastern front were nothing short of 'Horrific".

I've seen a number of Doco's on the subject, and I have a figure of something like 1,000,000 casualties in the first two weeks of the attack.
I know that the Germans took 2,000,000 Russian prisoners in the first 3 weeks. It's unbelievable.

(Many of these Russians were executed or spent years in Labour camps when they went back to Russia, for being 'cowards' by being captured. Once again, unbelievable. How do these mongrel bastards ever get into power, to be able to effect such terrible policies?  ;D )

It's no wonder the Eastern War was so much "crueler' and more 'vicious' than that in the West. You really can't blame the Russians for being so rotten to the Germans during the last months. They must have seen so many terrible things.  :'(

[Hagar]

[quote]
That brings up another point I made earlier - military blunders.

[WebbPA]

Will is right.  I am wrong.  A public wrong deserves a public apology and I apologize.

I have listened to several of Winston Churchill's speeches (esp. We will fight them on the beaches) and researched the Nazi plan for the conquest of Britain.

Nothing short of an armed invasion and military defeat of Britain on the ground would have caused its defeat.  The air battle was to be a prelude to the sea/ground invasion which, when it failed, signalled the end of the ground invasion plans.

The British would indeed have "fought them on the beaches".

[ATI_7500]

they fought them on the beaches - on the other side of the channel.

my impression of this discussion is that everyone just mentiones german bomb raids. what about the alliied raids on germany?
they were at least as cruel as the raids on england.


p.s: every nation can be defeated....