The Battle of Britain

[djm]

With Wings Like Eagles: A History of the Battle of Britain, by Michael Korda
The Battle of Britain, 1940. Less than one thousand RAF fighter pilots fought off the German bombers and fighters attempting to pave the way for a German invasion of the British Isles. Or were they? Hitler never seemed very committed to invasion, he mostly seemed to hope that the British government would change and elect someone more inclined to sit down at the peace table than Churchill was. Still, the bravery of these men (and women on the ground in many support positions getting bombed by the Luftwaffe) cannot be denied. Also interesting was the political machinations behind the scenes, much like the Civil War series above. From the people that helped build RAF Fighter Command (including maligned politicians like Chamberlain that ignored the prevailing idea that only a bomber force could deter bombing – much like MAD in the nuclear age) and especially Air Chief Marshal Hugh Caswell Tremenheere Dowding. He constantly fought off superiors and colleagues that tried to remove him or hinder his strategic plan to save Britain. He saw what was coming, and put in place the radar, the advanced fighters, the communication system, and centralized hierarchy that was able to meet the more numerous Luftwaffe and successfully bleed it to death. A prickly IxTJ hero for the ages.
Recommended.

Ah the battle of Britain London.

Like most Brummies (or Felchers* for that matter) I find the 'battle of Britain' moniker a tad hard to stomach. Both cities were carpet bombed during the so called Battle of Britain having had no air defence due to the priority given to London.

*a person from Coventry Chaventry.

Interesting list of books that anyway. Good luck with the weaning.

[MacGuffin]

Ah the battle of Britain London.

Like most Brummies (or Felchers* for that matter) I find the 'battle of Britain' moniker a tad hard to stomach. Both cities were carpet bombed during the so called Battle of Britain having had no air defence due to the priority given to London.

*a person from Coventry Chaventry.

Interesting list of books that anyway. Good luck with the weaning.


Thanks!

When did the carpet bombing begin? The book states the Luftwaffe only went after military/industrial targets at first due to the political situation. Actual bombing of residential areas was an accident.

[jyng1]

Ah the battle of Britain London.

Like most Brummies (or Felchers* for that matter) I find the 'battle of Britain' moniker a tad hard to stomach. Both cities were carpet bombed during the so called Battle of Britain having had no air defence due to the priority given to London.

*a person from Coventry Chaventry.

Interesting list of books that anyway. Good luck with the weaning.

Dowding and the Kiwi, Keith Park (commander of 11 Wing) were both removed from command after the Battle of Britain. Dowding and Park were instrumental in the tactics employed and Park had ongoing acrimonious disputes with Air Vice Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory of 12 group who was annoyed that Park was defending London while he was guarding airfields.

There were heated debates on strategy and tactics throughout, but undoubtably it was the geeks and radar that enabled the British, commonwealth and free forces to repel the numerically superior germans. I grew up with a Danish Hurricane pilot; fascinating man.

[nonperson]

Until the advent of GPS strategic bombing was always miss more than hit. In WW2 though the damage caused by bombing was horrendous it did little to harm war production. German war production rose year on year. The fallibility of bombing technology is often forgotten when academics discuss the rights and wrongs of the US decision to use atomic weapons on Japan. Choosing a solely military in country within such a small territory was impossible.

[MacGuffin]

The West Midlands is the industrial heartland of the UK, but all the factories were in civilian areas - any attack on them created high casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz

http://www.familyresearcher.co.uk/CoventryRaids.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2005/10/04/memorial_feature.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Blitz

Coventry had it worst - the Germans even used the expression 'Coventrated' to describe extreme bombing. What grates most in the region though is the common belief that Churchill allowed it to happen for strategic reasons (although it has never been proven categorically and there is argument between historians). What is evident is the thousands of unidentified people in mass graves, the bombing of hospitals, schools, churches, the dropping of thousands of incendiary bombs in residential areas.

The area of Brum I grew up in was obliterated - it was near the factories where they made Spitfires and Lancaster bombers. That none of the 1200 Spitfires built there were used to protect the city is a cause of some bitterness in the city. 400,000 Brummies worked in the factories through the war making planes, guns, tanks, munitions etc - they did not get a lot of protection from London.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the Birmingham air raids are less well known largely due to deliberate censorship and suppression by the government.

http://www.swanshurst.org/barra/

So most of that took place after the Battle of Britain? The book (and wiki) have it ending in October, and the Coventry bombings didn't start until November.

[C.J.Woolf]

The area of Brum I grew up in was obliterated - it was near the factories where they made Spitfires and Lancaster bombers. That none of the 1200 Spitfires built there were used to protect the city is a cause of some bitterness in the city.
Were Birmingham or Coventry ever hit in the daytime? London was at the limit of the Bf109's range, and when the Germans tried raids with Bf110-only escorts, they quickly learned that was a bad idea.

[Ferrus]

There has never been much informed debate over this in the UK, as to criticise Churchill is seen as a bit of a taboo here. Unpatriotic to have a go at our great saviour. I can see Churchills good points, but am not blind to his faults. I am also less than impressed with his record in the first world war - Gallipoli was a moronic waste of British and Anzac troops for instance.
Something that should not be overlooked, is a decision that is not widely known here. Churchill ordered a one-off bombing raid on Berlin during the early stages of the air battle. Previously, German bombers were focused on British airfields, and had almost neutralised the British air power by taking down those fields. Churchill knew that Hitler's propoganda would inevitably force him to switch to bombing civilian targets instead of the airfields. As, inevitably he did, and probably saved the RAF's bacon to boot. Whether this would've prevented an amphibious invasion is debatable, as the British navy was constantly seen as too annoying a nut to crack by the Nazi government, who were hoping for some kind of agreement (hence why they didn't obliterate British troops at Dunkirk) so that Hitler could fulfill his obession to destroy the Soviet Union. Although clearly it was a masterful strategic decision in some ways, Churchill's contempt for British civilian life seems to be a certain fact that is conveniently erased from the hagiographies one sees.

Also - another failure of Chuchill's that shouldn't be forgotten is the disastrous mismanagement of the battle of Crete where he wilfully diverted troops from North Africa in pursuit of his quixotic goals in Greece - and precipitated a rout on the island, leaving Wavell's advance into North Africa easy prey for Rommel, so that Eygpt itself became threatened.

It is interesting, in academic circles, Basil Hart, an former eminent military historian at Kings College, who was by all accounts a fairly staunch Tory, had a somewhat more complex picture to paint of Churchill as a military figure too.

[MacGuffin]

Something that should not be overlooked, is a decision that is not widely known here. Churchill ordered a one-off bombing raid on Berlin during the early stages of the air battle. Previously, German bombers were focused on British airfields, and had almost neutralised the British air power by taking down those fields. Churchill knew that Hitler's propoganda would inevitably force him to switch to bombing civilian targets instead of the airfields. As, inevitably he did, and probably saved the RAF's bacon to boot. Whether this would've prevented an amphibious invasion is debatable, as the British navy was constantly seen as too annoying a nut to crack by the Nazi government, who were hoping for some kind of agreement (hence why they didn't obliterate British troops at Dunkirk) so that Hitler could fulfill his obession to destroy the Soviet Union. Although clearly it was a masterful strategic decision in some ways, Churchill's contempt for British civilian life seems to be a certain fact that is conveniently erased from the hagiographies one sees.

That was covered in the book, and took place after a German bombing raid went astray and hit a residential area (at night I think).

I should split this off into its own thread!

[jyng1]

Also - another failure of Chuchill's that shouldn't be forgotten is the disastrous mismanagement of the battle of Crete where he wilfully diverted troops from North Africa in pursuit of his quixotic goals in Greece - and precipitated a rout on the island, leaving Wavell's advance into North Africa easy prey for Rommel, so that Eygpt itself became threatened.


A thread somewhere else is probably a good idea McG. Cute kid by the way.

I thought the troops were withdrawn from Greece to Crete in a bit of a rush (I'll have to read up on this) leaving behind most of their weapons apart from the small arms they were carrying. The airborne invasion of Crete by the Germans was still a bit of a bloodbath and the last major parachute assault by the German army. Maleme airfield was described as a bit of a duck shoot.

I didn't know Churchill had much to do with Crete. After Gallipoli, I'm starting to wonder if he just didn't like Kiwis and Aussies.

[Ferrus]

I thought the troops were withdrawn from Greece to Crete in a bit of a rush (I'll have to read up on this) leaving behind most of their weapons apart from the small arms they were carrying. The airborne invasion of Crete by the Germans was still a bit of a bloodbath and the last major parachute assault by the German army. Maleme airfield was described as a bit of a duck shoot.
No, the troops in Crete were transferred from the North African front to Crete, some of the troops evacuated from Athens were used in Crete too.


'After the defeat of the Allies, the decision to send British forces into Greece was met with fierce criticism in the UK. Field Marshal Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff during World War II, considered intervention in Greece to be "a definite strategic blunder", as it denied Wavell the necessary reserves to complete the conquest of Italian-held Libya, or to successfully withstand Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps March offensive. It thus prolonged the North African Campaign, which otherwise might have been successfully concluded within 1941. In 1947 de Guingand asked the British government to recognize the mistakes it made when it laid out its strategy in Greece. Buckley, on the other hand, argued that, if the UK had not answered its commitment of 1939 to defend Greece's independence, it would have severely damaged the ethical rationalizations of its struggle against Nazi Germany. According to Professor of History, Heinz Richter, Churchill tried through the campaign in Greece to influence the political atmosphere in the United States, and he insisted on this strategy even after the defeat. According to John Keegan, "the Greek campaign had been an old-fashioned gentlemen's war, with honor given and accepted by brave adversaries on each side", and the Greek and Allied forces, being vastly outnumbered, "had, rightly, the sensation of having fought the good fight."'

[jyng1]

No, the troops in Crete were transferred from the North African front to Crete, some of the troops evacuated from Athens were used in Crete too.


'After the defeat of the Allies, the decision to send British forces into Greece was met with fierce criticism in the UK. Field Marshal Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff during World War II, considered intervention in Greece to be "a definite strategic blunder", as it denied Wavell the necessary reserves to complete the conquest of Italian-held Libya, or to successfully withstand Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps March offensive. It thus prolonged the North African Campaign, which otherwise might have been successfully concluded within 1941. In 1947 de Guingand asked the British government to recognize the mistakes it made when it laid out its strategy in Greece. Buckley, on the other hand, argued that, if the UK had not answered its commitment of 1939 to defend Greece's independence, it would have severely damaged the ethical rationalizations of its struggle against Nazi Germany. According to Professor of History, Heinz Richter, Churchill tried through the campaign in Greece to influence the political atmosphere in the United States, and he insisted on this strategy even after the defeat. According to John Keegan, "the Greek campaign had been an old-fashioned gentlemen's war, with honor given and accepted by brave adversaries on each side", and the Greek and Allied forces, being vastly outnumbered, "had, rightly, the sensation of having fought the good fight."'

Wiki; Allied forces had occupied Crete when the Italians invaded Greece on 28 October, 1940. Though the Italians were initially repulsed, subsequent German intervention drove 57,000 Allied troops from the mainland. The Royal Navy evacuated many of them; some were taken to Crete to bolster its garrison.

Sounds like there was a 14,000 British garrison already on Crete. The Kiwi's came from Greece by British Navy without their heavy guns. Not sure where the African link came from. The Kiwi's went to North Africa after Crete.

[Qfwfq]

Until the advent of GPS strategic bombing was always miss more than hit. In WW2 though the damage caused by bombing was horrendous it did little to harm war production. German war production rose year on year. The fallibility of bombing technology is often forgotten when academics discuss the rights and wrongs of the US decision to use atomic weapons on Japan. Choosing a solely military in country within such a small territory was impossible.

I remember watching a doc on the then secretary of defense Robert Macnamara. He was talking about bombing precision and how it improved with the B-29 (was it B-29?) that could fly to Japan, where it did the firebombings. I can't see how dropping the A-bomb is justified because of difficulty hitting targets though.

[nonperson]

I remember watching a doc on the then secretary of defense Robert Macnamara. He was talking about bombing precision and how it improved with the B-29 (was it B-29?) that could fly to Japan, where it did the firebombings. I can't see how dropping the A-bomb is justified because of difficulty hitting targets though.

In total war it is very difficult to separate civilian from combatant.

The B-29 was equipped with a very advanced sight for its day; it didn't stop bombs going miles a stray even when released by experienced bombardiers.

I think the dropping of the bomb was done to test it, as a demonstration of power to Japan (and yes the USSR,) and yes strangely to save lives (principally of Allied servicemen.) Those who doubt the latter have no understanding of the subtleties of the bayonet.........

[nonperson]

Something that should not be overlooked, is a decision that is not widely known here. Churchill ordered a one-off bombing raid on Berlin during the early stages of the air battle. Previously, German bombers were focused on British airfields, and had almost neutralised the British air power by taking down those fields. Churchill knew that Hitler's propoganda would inevitably force him to switch to bombing civilian targets instead of the airfields. As, inevitably he did, and probably saved the RAF's bacon to boot. Whether this would've prevented an amphibious invasion is debatable, as the British navy was constantly seen as too annoying a nut to crack by the Nazi government, who were hoping for some kind of agreement (hence why they didn't obliterate British troops at Dunkirk) so that Hitler could fulfill his obession to destroy the Soviet Union. Although clearly it was a masterful strategic decision in some ways, Churchill's contempt for British civilian life seems to be a certain fact that is conveniently erased from the hagiographies one sees.

Also - another failure of Chuchill's that shouldn't be forgotten is the disastrous mismanagement of the battle of Crete where he wilfully diverted troops from North Africa in pursuit of his quixotic goals in Greece - and precipitated a rout on the island, leaving Wavell's advance into North Africa easy prey for Rommel, so that Eygpt itself became threatened.

It is interesting, in academic circles, Basil Hart, an former eminent military historian at Kings College, who was by all accounts a fairly staunch Tory, had a somewhat more complex picture to paint of Churchill as a military figure too.

QFT (mostly)

Amphibious operations are difficult to undertake even with specialized shipping. As Ferrus points the Germans lacked sufficient strength to mount even a sea denial operation let alone go for sea control. Even though Sea Lion would have been nowhere near as big an operation as the D-Day or Mediterranean operations the amount of craft needed would have been considerable. Caught in open water the RN would have inflicted enough damage to warrant aborting the operation. Making up the losses would have taken considerable time. Autumn seas would have made landings impossible (landings today are abandon in what to the untrained eye would seem to be quite low seas.)

The RAF have done marvelously out of the BoB myth.

[Ferrus]

I think the dropping of the bomb was done to test it, as a demonstration of power to Japan (and yes the USSR,) and yes strangely to save lives (principally of Allied servicemen.) Those who doubt the latter have no understanding of the subtleties of the bayonet.........
Disregarding the exact issue of civilians here, it would be odd to single out the atomic bomb alone for disapprobation - although the development of the technology was a shock, it was perfectly possible to destroy a city with a night's worth of conventional bombing, as was shown in Dresden, and the bombing and terrorisation of civilians had been practised by all sides from very early on.

[djm]

My maternal grandfather was sent into Hiroshima with one of the first teams that assessed the damage afterwards (He was stationed on a hospital ship in the RN). I have all the photos that he took - not very nice.

Agree with Ferrus that it was not necessary as evidenced by Dresden. Both Dresden and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were primarily used to show the Soviets what the US and the UK were capable of ahead of any turf wars when the world was carved up between the allies post war. Dresden was the the biggest single death toll in the war, killing far more than either of the nuclear attacks.

The way the nuclear attacks were sold here was that it forced a quick surrender which cut down massively the amount of allied casualties that would have been created in a protracted conventional campaign. This was not a hard thing to sell, as the poor treatment British POWs had in Japanese captivity had been much reported and the Japanese were regarded as sub-human monsters here at the time. I had a great uncle that had been a POW out there and he was very proud of the A bomb. My grandfather on the other hand that had seen it's damage first hand was a pacifist.

Dresden was an even easier sell - given what the Germans did to Coventry it was just seen as quid pro quo. Shocking now that such a blatant attack devastating attack on a largely non military target was not seen as a bad thing at the time, but several years of war is dehumanising (or re-humanising even if you see us as another animal species).

I can't say that I am particularly proud of either Dresden or the nuclear attacks. They are every bit as bad as the worst activities of the Nazi war machine. History of written by the winners though.

[C.J.Woolf]

I believe the atomic bombs did shorten the war. The Japanese were prepared to defend the home islands as fanatically as they defended Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but the shock and otherworldliness of the atomic bomb gave the Japanese leadership a face-saving excuse to surrender.

[nonperson]

it was perfectly possible to destroy a city with a night's worth of conventional bombing, as was shown in Dresden, and the bombing and terrorisation of civilians had been practised by all sides from very early on.

I am very familiar with the effects of HE and phosphorus based munitions.

War is about us and them. And those who win put us first. A death is death whether it is caused by nuclear fission or exsanguination
caused by a bayoneting. War doesn't have logic. And I am not saying that using the atomic weapons was right. All I am saying perhaps is the reasons why decisions are made can't always be nicely rounded up like a first year tutorial in Cold War politics.

There are more one or two members here who enjoy a good middle class lifestyle because the West kept money in the economy by opting for a cheap defence based on nuclear weapons than a far more expensive one based on conventional weapons. And there are more of us who never had to spend a year or more in the armed forces......

[Anonymous]

I believe the atomic bombs did shorten the war. The Japanese were prepared to defend the home islands as fanatically as they defended Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but the shock and otherworldliness of the atomic bomb gave the Japanese leadership a face-saving excuse to surrender.

The Japanese leadership certainly was. Whether or not the Japanese people were, I'm not so sure about.

[OrionzRevenge]

...
With 5 million people living in the West Midlands, and far more industry than London it was always going to be a prime target. Churchill was faced with protecting London as best as he could and leaving the Midlands unprotected, or spreading the defense around and protecting neither the Midlands or London adequately. Not a great set of options really granted - but you can possibly see why when London was chosen to be protected at the cost of other cities that Battle of London would be a more appropriate moniker than Battle of Britain. There was no battle over Coventry or Birmingham, just a dropping of bombs.
The other gripe is the widespread belief in the region that Churchill knew Coventry was to be bombed but did not take measures to protect it to avoid letting the Germans know that the British had cracked it's Enigma code. This arose after one of the people involved with the code cracking project wrote about it, but has always been denied by the government...

Agreed, the cold calculus required to prevail in a total war against a mad man makes for many a broken heart. As per possible neglect of Enigma Intell... Yes, it could have occurred... understandably so. EXAMPLE: At times whole troop transport ships loaded with soldiers had to be allowed into known harms way to protect the greatest allied weapon of the war. (ULTRA: Allied breaking of the German Enigma Code -- and that the Germans were oblivious to this fact) Indeed, until it was revealed some years after the war, the Germans had no clue the Enigma Cipher Machines could even be broken.
When possible, the allies would vector a patrol-craft, or re-con mission to 'discover' the enemy's plans in time to react as a cover. However, said 'discoveries' had to seem random and routine. Even London would have not been worth compromising the ULTRA secret.

Like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tokyo, and Berlin to follow... The city of London was a symbol that both side were keying on as a barometer of the war's progress. Over here in the states, families took there evening meals with Edward R. Murrow on the Radio doing "London After Dark" broadcast. It was a powerful tool used to melt away our isolationist attitudes. So too, like Napoleon before him, Hitler felt Tommy's will to fight resided in the mortar and bricks of a city. Right or wrong, the best way to reach "...the End of the Beginning" was to demonstrate that London would survive.

http://www.archive.org/details/WWII_News_1940

http://books.google.com/books?id=tAldWFy6X-8C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=london+after+dark,+wwii&source=bl&ots=31-8zEA4Ds&sig=Aee3N1YftAS2_8s9BwiJz9tlY20&hl=en


...
There has never been much informed debate over this in the UK, as to criticise Churchill is seen as a bit of a taboo here. Unpatriotic to have a go at our great saviour. I can see Churchills good points, but am not blind to his faults. I am also less than impressed with his record in the first world war - Gallipoli was a moronic waste of British and Anzac troops for instance.

Over on this side of the pond we find Churchill bashing to be Taboo as well. It seemed stunningly rude how he was handed his Derby in the post war elections of 46. Yet, I guess I can understand that you might not want to see the doctor everyday that sawed off your leg to save your life. So too, I understand it is easy for us yanks sitting behind our two ocean fortifications to speak non-emotional of this cold calculus of war that was very personal for our Anglo brethren. ...A sort of personal fear that we really did not become aware of till 9-11.
As per Gallipoli, I don't see his failing as a moronic misjudgment, but rather a lack of understanding of how effective the u-boat would be at negating UK naval supremacy at maintaing the lines of communication and supply. ...an ignorance many shared at the time.

A good read: Gallipoli: Attack from the Sea
Victor Rudenno
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/wilsont.html


Something that should not be overlooked, is a decision that is not widely known here. Churchill ordered a one-off bombing raid on Berlin during the early stages of the air battle. Previously, German bombers were focused on British airfields, and had almost neutralised the British air power by taking down those fields. Churchill knew that Hitler's propoganda would inevitably force him to switch to bombing civilian targets instead of the airfields. As, inevitably he did, and probably saved the RAF's bacon to boot.....


That was covered in the book, and took place after a German bombing raid went astray and hit a residential area (at night I think).

Agreed, bacon well kept!
Hitler took pains to try to avoid the sort of collateral damage that Churchill could use as a Casus Belli to order a Berlin raid. Yet, the Hun had done much to prime the pump during the first world war as per terror weapon usage. The Bull Dog was tugging at the leash to extract revenge for the prior insults.

>> Scuds of 1914-1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

>> viewed as war crimes, the first WMD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas_in_World_War_I

>>Unsportsmanlike commerce raiding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat

>>The first terrors of the sky.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Blitz-Zeppelin-England-Weapons/dp/0850528127

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot32/snapshot32.htm



I remember watching a doc on the then secretary of defense Robert Macnamara. He was talking about bombing precision and how it improved with the B-29 (was it B-29?) that could fly to Japan, where it did the firebombings. I can't see how dropping the A-bomb is justified because of difficulty hitting targets though.

Interesting, in that during Robert MacNamara's helmsmanship of the Vietnam conflict the Pave-Way laser guided smart bomb came onto line. The A-bomb justification for lack of bombing accuracy being... If you can't decapitate with precision then you will have to resort to the attrition of carpet bombing... why not use an atomic bomb when you are already doing the same sort of damage???


In total war it is very difficult to separate civilian from combatant.

The B-29 was equipped with a very advanced sight for its day; it didn't stop bombs going miles a stray even when released by experienced bombardiers.

I think the dropping of the bomb was done to test it, as a demonstration of power to Japan (and yes the USSR,) and yes strangely to save lives (principally of Allied servicemen.) Those who doubt the latter have no understanding of the subtleties of the bayonet.........

Even with an advanced Norden bomb sight the B-29s flew at stratospheric levels and required visual lock that was often obscured by cloud cover. so too, bombs falling from such a great height are at the mercy of cross-currents and sudden wind changes that can mean the difference between a bull's eye on the ball-bearing plant or the demolition of a day-care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight

True NP, the Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb dropped by b-29 "Enola Gay" was a test of concept. (As the Uranium Gun design had only enough material for one shot at that time.) The "Fat Man" Plutonium imploding sphere design that was dropped later by B-29 "Boc's Car" had been tested about a month prior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

I agree as well with the notion that the 2 A-bombs dropped on Japan saved lives. Smart people say it may have saved a million (mostly allied) in the PTW. Prez Truman would have been tried for treason had he not used it.


Disregarding the exact issue of civilians here, it would be odd to single out the atomic bomb alone for disapprobation - although the development of the technology was a shock, it was perfectly possible to destroy a city with a night's worth of conventional bombing, as was shown in Dresden, and the bombing and terrorisation of civilians had been practiced by all sides from very early on.

Agreed as well, that the A-bombs greatest value was shock and to impart fear in the Japanese leadership that a bunker would not save their lives. Gen. Hap Arnold had the tools, mandate and will to set all of Japan on fire without splitting atoms. ...Much worse than Dresden even (As a much higher percentage of Japanese buildings and infrastructure was wood).

[OrionzRevenge]

I believe the atomic bombs did shorten the war. The Japanese were prepared to defend the home islands as fanatically as they defended Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but the shock and otherworldliness of the atomic bomb gave the Japanese leadership a face-saving excuse to surrender.

Many have voiced the opine that the Japanese were already willing to surrender
prior to the A-bomb use. Of this I would remind them of the Attempted military coup d'état (August 12–15, 1945) the very eve before the Emperor's recorded surrender message was to be transmitted.

Look for the heading "Attempted military coup d'état " near the bottom.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:VXPbA8Y2DrIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan+palace+coup,+japan+wwii&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Ferrus]

My maternal grandfather was sent into Hiroshima with one of the first teams that assessed the damage afterwards (He was stationed on a hospital ship in the RN). I have all the photos that he took - not very nice.
My maternal grandfather and his twin brother (both from Kent) were sent in with the Royal Marines to occupy that territory as part of the British contingent. Of course, as good SPs they never took any pictures as such and besides they were just squadies so wouldn't have had access to camera. Although I do remember him telling me of seeing shadows burnt against walls.

However, he was far more affected, it would seem, by what he saw when he went into China, earlier, where the Japanese had systematically starved the population. He is an extremely unemotional and pragmatic man, such as were most of his generation but even he had to pause and finds it difficult to discuss the crowds of half-dead and naked Chinese peasants he saw. In that sense, for him the atomic bombs were almost too good for the Japs.

I also think, the prime motivation of the decision to bomb Japan, and this is not a condemnation for what it is worth, was to prevent the partition of the country with the Soviets, as had happened to Germany and Korea, sheer power politics. I don't suspose for any mintute the US or British governments would've forgone large military casualities involved in a conventional invasion had it suited them.

I am for what it is worth trying to disengage from the moral arguments somewhat so that at least it is possible to come to some kind of rational assesment of the actors involved on their own terms, which is a vital precondition of understanding. Much of the nonsense over the years that has been written about Neville Chamberlain for example could have been avoided if people could just get into the mentallity of the 1930s. Hitler was seen as no worse than any other multitude of military dictators - our current perceptions owe more to war propoganda and the Holocaust that of course didn't exist then - and Britain, nor France for that matter, was similarly not armed enough to fight a war in 1938.

And yes, humans may be animals - but other animals don't have governments, nation-states and hydrogen bombs, which of course makes it all the more interesting. :)

[nonperson]

the Royal Marines as good SPs

I have never thought of Booties having a MB type. The whole system has collapsed for me. :sadbanana:

[Ferrus]

I have never thought of Booties having a MB type. The whole system has collapsed for me. :sadbanana:
I meant they were not a particularly set of units.

Although the best troops would be SPs, I should imagine.

This topic has also reminded me of the Japanese POW debate. It was partially a matter of cultural clash. The Japanese in their culture never had a tradition of taking prisoners, bushido, the code of honour, required that you died fighting or committed suicide. Allied troops who surrended, British, Australia and American for the most part, were treated with little respect as by Japanese standards they were contemptible cowards. The Germans actually treated the Western Allied POWs semi-decently, allowing the Red Cross on sight and so on.

[nonperson]

I meant they were not a particularly set of units.

Although the best troops would be SPs, I should imagine.

This topic has also reminded me of the Japanese POW debate. It was partially a matter of cultural clash. The Japanese in their culture never had a tradition of taking prisoners, bushido, the code of honour, required that you died fighting or committed suicide. Allied troops who surrended, British, Australia and American for the most part, were treated with little respect as by Japanese standards they were contemptible cowards. The Germans actually treated the Western Allied POWs semi-decently, allowing the Red Cross on sight and so on.

I was joking about the MBTI of Royal..........

As for PoW the Germans followed (for the most part) the Geneva Convention. One of the least known peculiarities of the conflict was there were prisoner exchanges between the Allies and the Axis powers.

This reminds of the episode were the RAF dropped new prosthetic limbs into Douglas Bader's PoW camp.

[C.J.Woolf]

One of the least known peculiarities of the conflict was there were prisoner exchanges between the Allies and the Axis powers.
That was actually a revival of an old custom. Ulysses S. Grant in the American Civil War stopped exchanging prisoners as part of an attritional strategy. He figured the Confederates needed their prisoners back more then the Union did. Sucked for the prisoners.

[Oso Mocoso]

The Japanese in their culture never had a tradition of taking prisoners, bushido, the code of honour, required that you died fighting or committed suicide. Allied troops who surrended, British, Australia and American for the most part, were treated with little respect as by Japanese standards they were contemptible cowards.

My grandfather was a Marine who was captured by the Japanese when they were massively overwhelmed on their station when Japan invaded the Philippines. He never spoke about it to anyone as far as I know. Maybe my grandmother, but she never talked about it either. Actually, all she said was that when American military heard about how the Japanese behaved as occupiers they were much less hesitant to be vicious in fighting them.

My mother-in-law was a young child when Japan occupied the country, and she was much more talkative about what happened there. She remembers Japanese soldiers cooking one of her neighbors alive in his home because he didn't have any food for them to take from him.