Thank you very much CWO Marc.
Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…
-
This thread has opened up historic issues that are far bigger than my original post. Perhaps some new threads could be started around these bigger issues. I think they mostly have to do with traditional history vs. revisionist history.
-
In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time,
I cannot possibly express my disagreement with the above statement in strong enough terms! In the entire course of human history, there has never been a major power more evil than the Soviet Union.
I was theoretically speaking from their point of view… Nazi Germany was seen as the greater of the two evils, at that time. I realize that you personally vehemently disagree, but my statement was not about you (or me).
There was a time in the past when I would have agreed with you. I’d lapped up everything I could about WWII, all of which was written from a very heavily slanted, pro-Allied perspective. But certain things didn’t add up. For example, Poland in 1939 was obviously very eager to stand up to Germany, and showed no interest to coming to any kind of mutually agreeable terms with Germany. Of course, no mention was made of the lies sleazy French politicians had told the Polish. Instead, Poland’s position was subtly portrayed as the result of bravery and stupidity. But I suspected–correctly, as it turns out–that the Polish couldn’t possibly have been that stupid.
The more Allied lies I uncovered, the more things added up and made sense. Every fresh Allied lie I discovered reduced my level of trust for the Allied perspective as a whole. I eventually concluded that the entire Allied perspective was built on a series of big lies.
Thanks for your discussion, it has been very eye opening and intriguing.
@Der:
This thread has opened up historic issues that are far bigger than my original post. Perhaps some new threads could be started around these bigger issues. I think they mostly have to do with traditional history vs. revisionist history.
Yes, it has. My apologies for the derailment. For my part at least, I have temporarily exhausted my desire to continue the back and forth here, let alone to begin another one. Though if such a new thread is created I will check in on it.
-
I was theoretically speaking from their point of view… Nazi Germany was seen as the greater of the two evils, at that time. I realize that you personally vehemently disagree, but my statement was not about you (or me).
Thanks for your discussion, it has been very eye opening and intriguing.
Yes, it has. My apologies for the derailment. For my part at least, I have temporarily exhausted my desire to continue the back and forth here, let alone to begin another one. Though if such a new thread is created I will check in on it.
I realize that you personally vehemently disagree, but my statement was not about you (or me).
I appreciate the clarification.
Thanks for your discussion, it has been very eye opening and intriguing.
It has.
For my part at least, I have temporarily exhausted my desire to continue the back and forth here.
Okay. If anyone else here feels like continuing, I’m game. But if not, we can put this conversation on hold for the time being. There will be time enough to resume discussing these topics once Imperious Leader starts a thread about battleship design or the Battle of Guadalcanal. 8-)
-
Re: Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…
Whoa, whoa thread police… Der Kuenstler has chimed in on this discussion too, and this being his thread I think that is tantamount to a sanctioning of where this has led. Maybe I am wrong though. rolleyes
Anyway… to tie all this back in with the original post, summarize and generalize:
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945. While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did. They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies, who were in fact the true warmongers of the Second World War (and the First). Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis because they were intentional before war even began.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time. While some benefit of the doubt can be given to Hitler over his intentions, he caused many of the situations which prompted war and then initiated that war himself. The Allies did not fight a genocidal war to rid the world of Germans, nor did they callously exploit their continental allies or Jews for their own warmongering gain. In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time, and the more accessible one. Hitler repeatedly showed that he was not worthy of trust and coupled with the acts of persecution against European residents, a negotiated surrender with the Nazi government remaining in power was not an option.
While this may all seem very unrelated to the initial post, it rather quickly delved to the core of the meaning behind Der Kuenstler’s assertion. The initial post was not just about four engine bombers, the implications in it were far more significant than a commentary on a piece of technology. The underlying message was that our traditional understanding of the causes and forces behind the Second World War are the opposite of what currently recognize. This amounts to turning our interpretations upside down.
I have no problem at all exploring that assertion, in fact, I would love to explore it. So far, Kurt’s (and Der Keunstler’s) perspective has been remarkably well supported, even if I still do not buy the majority of it. I think this discussion has become far more compelling than a rather limited one about the history of four engine bomber aircraft.
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the
complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945.I’d like to rephrase the above slightly. I’d argue that for various reasons, Germany faced an uphill battle for survival. This uphill battle was caused by several factors:
- The militarization and industrialization of the Soviet Union. In the spring of '41, the German Army consisted of 150 divisions. By the late fall of '41, the Red Army consisted of 600 divisions. In 1942, the Soviet Union outproduced Germany by a 3 or 4 to one ratio in all major land weapons categories.
- The fact that the Soviet Union’s long-term goal was world conquest.
- The fact that the Western democracies had no interest in preventing Soviet expansionism. In the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-'20, the Western democracies did precisely nothing to prevent the Soviets from annexing Poland. (Except for a few French military advisors.) Influenced by pro-Soviet labor unions, Britain sold weapons to the Soviets but not the Polish.
- The fact that the major Western democracies were in many cases pro-Soviet. France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. As did Czechoslovakia. FDR was strongly pro-Soviet, and even became an accessory to Soviet mass murder.
- The Soviets had achieved significant penetration of the Western democracies; and therefore exerted significant influence on Western democratic foreign policies. This influence was generally used to promote “anti-fascism.” Before the Soviet Union invaded Germany, Stalin wanted there to be a long, bloody war between Germany and the Western democracies. Not only would this make the task of invading Germany easier, it would also weaken French resistance to the second stage of Stalin’s plans for expansion.
Could Otto von Bismarck have successfully navigated these shark-infested waters? Possibly. But the task would have been a grave challenge even for a statesman as gifted as him. Hitler lacked von Bismarck’s subtlety. He was too straightforward, too easily predicted, and therefore too easy for his enemies to manipulate.
While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do
the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did.Nazism consisted of three core aspects:
- Love for Germans and Germanic peoples
- Indifference or hatred for Slavs
- Intense hatred for Jews
The motives for Nazis’ actions could generally be explained in terms of the above. However, the degree they were willing to act on 2) and 3) has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted by Allied propagandists.
They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies,
This is beyond reasonable dispute. Take a standard-issue history book about WWII, such as Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Not once in his 1400 pages does he mention the Allied food blockade, or the fact that Germany did not have the food to feed the people within its borders. But he goes into extensive detail about Nazi killings of Jews and Slavs. Instead of telling the truth (that Hitler killed large numbers of Slavs due to the food shortage), Shirer creates the impression that Hitler was bursting with eagerness to get the anti-Slavic genocide started right away. (As opposed to doing the smart thing and waiting until the war was over before beginning the supposed planned genocide against the Slavs.)
Needless to say, neither Shirer nor others like him represent a credible source of information on how we should interpret WWII. His book is a (deliberate?) mix of historical fact and blatantly dishonest Allied propaganda.
Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis
I don’t think there can be a meaningful comparison between the two. The only time the Nazis engaged in large-scale mass murder was when they couldn’t feed their own people due to the Allied food blockade. The Soviet Union committed tens of millions of mass murders during the prewar period. Both the Soviet Union and Western democracies committed millions of murders during the postwar period. The Allies were also guilty of tens of millions of murders during the war.
In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time,
I cannot possibly express my disagreement with the above statement in strong enough terms! In the entire course of human history, there has never been a major power more evil than the Soviet Union.
There is this illusion that Allied leaders and Allied politicians were somehow “good” people who wanted what was best for the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. As an American, I’ve seen plenty of sleazy or immoral people elected to office. People without moral centers. Democratically elected Allied leaders of the '30s and '40s were like that too, only more so. This moral failure was why no major Western democracy adopted an anti-Soviet foreign policy until 1948.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally
Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time.There was a time in the past when I would have agreed with you. I’d lapped up everything I could about WWII, all of which was written from a very heavily slanted, pro-Allied perspective. But certain things didn’t add up. For example, Poland in 1939 was obviously very eager to stand up to Germany, and showed no interest to coming to any kind of mutually agreeable terms with Germany. Of course, no mention was made of the lies sleazy French politicians had told the Polish. Instead, Poland’s position was subtly portrayed as the result of bravery and stupidity. But I suspected–correctly, as it turns out–that the Polish couldn’t possibly have been that stupid.
The more Allied lies I uncovered, the more things added up and made sense. Every fresh Allied lie I discovered reduced my level of trust for the Allied perspective as a whole. I eventually concluded that the entire Allied perspective was built on a series of big lies.
-
@Imperious:
Re: Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…
Whoa, whoa thread police… Der Kuenstler has chimed in on this discussion too, and this being his thread I think that is tantamount to a sanctioning of where this has led. Maybe I am wrong though. rolleyes
Anyway… to tie all this back in with the original post, summarize and generalize:
…
Well maybe they should have. It would have stopped Kurt and I arguing about unrelated things.
-
Problem solved!
-
Well I’ll keep this short and technical. I’m not as well versed as many regarding WWII. To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example. The Condor also had problems with it’s power plants and needed constant repair. The airframe of the Condor also could be strainded in sharp turns or steep dives which were performed frequently during missions whilst spotting convoys for the ubootwaffe.
Hitler also seemed to have an “always be bombing” mantra in regards to aircraft. So the Luftwaffe’s line-up of aircraft heavily focused on medium-sized and light tactical bombers rather than the heavier stategic bobmbers of other nations.
One last note regarding planes like the B-17. One concept behind the B-17 was that it would be bombing fleet formations heading towards the coasts of the United States. The B-17 was also heavily modified throughout the course of the war. The need for these modifications was mostly due to the US making more accurate daylight bombing runs in the ETO thus losing the cover of nightfall and needing more defensive armament.
We must also take into account the accuracy of strategic bombng, it wasn’t. The concept of taking out spacific strategic targets was in its infancy. While the Norden bombsight was innovative, it was light years away from say a cruise missle or drone strike of today. It was however more accurate than most of the technology of it’s time but it took many bombs just to get one hit. It was akin to rolling a cup full of dice to score one snake eyes instead of a bucket.
Lastly I think it is easy to look upon the past from the vantage point of the future. The world wars occured at a time litterally when the world went from near Napoleonic era tactics to nuclear weapons in a short span of just over thirty years. The people and leadership of the world would make decisions during a time of rapid change both technologically and socially. This doesn’t excuse mistakes or tragedy but gives us insight.
-
Well I’ll keep this short and technical. I’m not as well versed as many regarding WWII. To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example. The Condor also had problems with it’s power plants and needed constant repair. The airframe of the Condor also could be strainded in sharp turns or steep dives which were performed frequently during missions whilst spotting convoys for the ubootwaffe.
Hitler also seemed to have an “always be bombing” mantra in regards to aircraft. So the Luftwaffe’s line-up of aircraft heavily focused on medium-sized and light tactical bombers rather than the heavier stategic bobmbers of other nations.
One last note regarding planes like the B-17. One concept behind the B-17 was that it would be bombing fleet formations heading towards the coasts of the United States. The B-17 was also heavily modified throughout the course of the war. The need for these modifications was mostly due to the US making more accurate daylight bombing runs in the ETO thus losing the cover of nightfall and needing more defensive armament.
We must also take into account the accuracy of strategic bombng, it wasn’t. The concept of taking out spacific strategic targets was in its infancy. While the Norden bombsight was innovative, it was light years away from say a cruise missle or drone strike of today. It was however more accurate than most of the technology of it’s time but it took many bombs just to get one hit. It was akin to rolling a cup full of dice to score one snake eyes instead of a bucket.
Lastly I think it is easy to look upon the past from the vantage point of the future. The world wars occured at a time litterally when the world went from near Napoleonic era tactics to nuclear weapons in a short span of just over thirty years. The people and leadership of the world would make decisions during a time of rapid change both technologically and socially. This doesn’t excuse mistakes or tragedy but gives us insight.
Wisdom in a thread gone off the rails. 8-)
-
To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example.
And that is good wisdom. If you want as much bang for your 60 IPC as possible, you buy 6 Fighters, not 5 Bombers. You only buy Bombers if you need the extra range. Fortunately to Germany, everything they needed to destroy were in their neighborhood, so no need for the extra range
-
@Der:
I think they mostly have to do with traditional history vs. revisionist history.
After what I’ve read here, my only comment is: revisionism = neonazi propaganda. And I’m not going to mention specifically the plain lies here since they’ve already been drawn too much attention to and that’s exactly what the posters want.
And topics hijacked by people who merely want to use it to pass the kind of bullshit I’ve read here as ‘what really happened’ should be closed period.
-
And topics hijacked by people who merely want to use it to pass the kind of bullshit I’ve read here as ‘what really happened’ should be closed period.
EXACTLY 100%. And if you search his past posts, that soapbox has been revisited at least 5 times over and over again.
-
After what I’ve read here, my only comment is: revisionism = neonazi propaganda. And I’m not going to mention specifically the plain lies here since they’ve already been drawn too much attention to and that’s exactly what the posters want.
And topics hijacked by people who merely want to use it to pass the kind of bullshit I’ve read here as ‘what really happened’ should be closed period.
I don’t get the feeling that you came to this thread to have a reasonable, civil discussion with those whose perspectives differ from yours. That’s certainly your choice. But I’d ask you to refrain from throwing around vague, sweeping, unsubstantiated accusations against undefined targets or undefined positions. Such a tactic enlightens no one, and merely serves to increase the emotional temperature of the room.
-
“As for Imperious Leader’s posts: he keeps stating that the threads he’s closed had gone off-topic. It’s not clear why he feels the need to be a broken record on that point, when I’d already addressed it with my first post. I’d indicated that I have no objection to his requirement that threads stay on-topic.”
what would help germany more in ww2?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18980.msg643575#msg643575
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18980.msg643575#msg643575Ever been to a dog show? Eugenic’s today
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21764.msg732388#msg732388Albert Speer
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21965.msg740494#msg740494
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21965.msg740217#msg740217Germany’s wartime food supply
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.msg789196#msg789196what IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23044.msg788198#msg788198WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17127.msg784654#msg784654
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17127.msg784509#msg784509Germany’s wartime food supply
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.msg790540#msg790540
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.msg789452#msg789452Japanese Invasion of America?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25097.msg875015#msg875015The Bromberg Massacre
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25395.msg877040#msg877040American diplomatic strategy in the late '30s and early '40s
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26536.msg924543#msg924543pre-war Japanese options
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26412.msg924710#msg924710
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26536.msg924690#msg924690What if the Axis won the War?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26769.msg944604#msg944604Broken Record? Broken record! Different threads same ideas it seems.
-
@Imperious:
“As for Imperious Leader’s posts: he keeps stating that the threads he’s closed had gone off-topic. It’s not clear why he feels the need to be a broken record on that point, when I’d already addressed it with my first post. I’d indicated that I have no objection to his requirement that threads stay on-topic.”
what would help germany more in ww2?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18980.msg643575#msg643575
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18980.msg643575#msg643575Ever been to a dog show? Eugenic’s today
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21764.msg732388#msg732388Albert Speer
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21965.msg740494#msg740494
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21965.msg740217#msg740217Germany’s wartime food supply
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.msg789196#msg789196what IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23044.msg788198#msg788198WW2 Article: Advanced German Technology
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17127.msg784654#msg784654
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17127.msg784509#msg784509Germany’s wartime food supply
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.msg790540#msg790540
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.msg789452#msg789452Japanese Invasion of America?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25097.msg875015#msg875015The Bromberg Massacre
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25395.msg877040#msg877040American diplomatic strategy in the late '30s and early '40s
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26536.msg924543#msg924543pre-war Japanese options
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26412.msg924710#msg924710
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26536.msg924690#msg924690What if the Axis won the War?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26769.msg944604#msg944604Broken Record? Broken record! Different threads same ideas it seems.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to create that list of links. I randomly clicked on a few of the things in your list, and thought to myself, Wow! I put a lot of effort into these posts! :o
I encourage anyone who’s interested to randomly click on a link or three, and take a look. Don’t take my word or Imperious Leader’s word for what’s in them. See for yourselves.
Broken Record? Broken record!
You are aware that’s the eight time in this thread you’ve made that particular point? 8-)
-
After what I’ve read here, my only comment is: revisionism = neonazi propaganda.
So it appears the only version of history you’d like discussed here is the winner’s version. Propaganda is not defined as lies - it is defined as information organized to sway the opinion of people to a certain opinion. And if the posters here don’t think the Allied powers used it or are even still using it today, then I think they are quite naïve.
I’d like to think a person can believe today that both sides were flawed and did evil things as well as good during WWII without being labeled a neo-Nazi, but this just shows how good the allied propaganda machine has been for the past 70 years.
-
I FEEL the same as IL and Hobbes. I think the Allies (excluding the Soviets) were in the right and the axis in the wrong. However, its not unreasonable to think some skeletons were hidden in the closet by the winners. We think of WWII as the last “just” war, when in reality war and death are never truly just. I will always disagree with those that see the Western Allies as worse or equal to the Axis. But I’m certainly willing to learn about the Allies’ faults, since they are not mentioned often. I do think discussion is important (and not inherently neo-nazi), maybe just in a different thread. :mrgreen:
-
@Der:
So it appears the only version of history you’d like discussed here is the winner’s version. Propaganda is not defined as lies - it is defined as information organized to sway the opinion of people to a certain opinion. And if the posters here don’t think the Allied powers used it or are even still using it today, then I think they are quite naive.
I’d like to think a person can believe today that both sides were flawed and did evil things as well as good during WWII without being labeled a neo-Nazi, but this just shows how good the allied propaganda machine has been for the past 70 years.
And if the posters here don’t think the Allied powers used it or are even still using it today, then I think they are quite naive.
Exactly right. There’s such a thing as absolute truth. But the Allied depiction of WWII isn’t based on any sort of search for absolute truth.
Back in WWI, Britain and France successfully used atrocity propaganda to get the United States into the war. We Americans were told of millions of Belgian civilians the Germans had supposedly murdered. After the war, we learned that the atrocity propaganda had been a pack of lies. America had been duped! It was this realization which caused the U.S. to embrace isolationism so strongly.
The same Western democracies which elected lying politicians from 1910 - 1918 also elected lying politicians in the '30s and '40s.
This second batch of lying politicians learned from the mistakes of their predecessors. They continued to use atrocity propaganda against Germany the second time around. But this time, they made sure there were dead bodies. Winston Churchill ordered the bombing of German cities, so as to provoke the Nazis into retaliating against British cities. The dead bodies of British citizens were then used as fuel for Churchill’s propaganda machine.
Europe was less able to feed itself during WWII than it had been during WWI. The Allied food blockade resulted in a far more massive death toll the second time around. Every death cased by the food blockade was blamed on the Nazis. This time, the Allies had the dead bodies absolutely required by the propaganda tactics they’d chosen.
The Allies’ tactics solved another of their problems as well. Prior to the war, Stalin had murdered tens of millions of his own people. There was a genuine chance that, when the Germans arrived, large numbers of Soviet citizens would join the invasion effort; on the theory that this way they’d be fighting against the man who (in many cases) had murdered their families. But if Hitler couldn’t feed the people in occupied Soviet territory (Allied food blockade), then his invasion could be portrayed as the first step in a long-term plan to exterminate the Slav. Any Slav who bought into that propaganda effort would most likely see Stalin as the lesser of two evils. Despite this, it was still sometimes necessary for Soviet commissars to shoot men who attempted to desert. Even Soviet soldiers who fought were only 1/3 as combat-effective as their German counterparts. But that 1/3 was enough, given the Allies’ overwhelming numeric advantage.
Every step of the way, the Allies’ propaganda efforts were aided by the Nazis’ own flaws. They didn’t have to retaliate in-kind against bombings of German civilian targets. When famine conditions came, they didn’t have to single out Jews for extermination.
To give another example: Hitler’s administration contained a number of people who took a hard line against Slavs and anything Slavic. There were also a number of people who, for want of a better term, I’ll call pro-Slavic. This latter group saw Slavs as potential allies in the war against communism. The pro-Slavic faction wanted people in occupied Soviet territories to be treated well. They also wanted active efforts to recruit and arm as many Slavs as possible. Hitler largely sided with the anti-Slavic faction in this dispute; and gave several anti-Slavs positions of power in the conquered eastern territories. Hitler didn’t embrace the pro-Slavic faction’s suggestions for recruiting and arming the Slavs. Despite this, about 1 million citizens of the Soviet Union served in the German Army during WWII.
Hitler’s failure to embrace the pro-Slavic faction’s position represents the grain of sand around which the pearl of Allied propaganda grew.
-
The simple answer is that the Germans didn’t forsee the type of war where the four engine bomber was needed. Twin engine bombers were fit the need for supporting the army and bombing Poland, the Low Countries and France.
Bombing over the Urals, deep into the Atlantic and the Western “Lend Lease” ports of Britain was not what the Luftwaffe was design to do.
The poor preformance of the Me-110 and the gap in fighter protection that resulted from that failure was a far more fatal shortcoming than the lack of a four engine bomber.
Let’s remember the Germans entered the Battle of Britain with other weaknesses other than no four engine bombers and no escort fighters. The bomber force, while large, was made up of older 1930 bomber designs. The Do-17 was fast mail plane which resulted in a slow, small bomber with a light payload. The He-111, while having a heavier payload that the Do-17, was slow and under protected. The best bomber, the Ju-88, made up a small percentage of the bomber fleet.
-
Let’s remember that the premise of this discussion was that the Germans did not build a four-engine (heavy) bomber because (a) their only conceivable use was against civilian population centers and (b) the Germans were too moral to choose such a course of action… therefore: no heavy bombers built. (In conjunction, the Allies knew (a) and built them with the sole intention of using them to wage genocidal war against German civilians.)
I do not think it can be argued that this is not the statement or intention or Der Kuenstler in his post.
With all the scholarly support given by Kurt, I still do not see how the above argument could possibly be true. The original post was not intended to explain why Germany did not build these bombers (or what they could have done differently to win the air war), but to show that the Allies did build them and connived to use them in a manner to baldly kill civilians rather than with any tactical or strategic intention. Call it hidden truth or whatever you like, but it really comes across just as a hit piece.
-
You are aware that’s the eight time in this thread you’ve made that particular point? cool
Are you aware that those 17 links are only the first 16 pages out of 55 pages? I just got bored after 12 minutes and stopped. The person who brings up the same soapbox argument is not me.
I wonder if i did the 55 pages how may more posts would i find about how the Holocaust was somewhat fiction in many regards or how Stalin committed many more atrocities, or how the Allied naval Blockade, Fire Bombing at Dresden, Starvation of German citizens, and a host of many other “explanations” makes the Holocaust any less important on the scale of human suffering.
Suggested Topics
