Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…

Very good post! :) Well written, and as best I can tell 100% factually accurate.

I have several points to add:

After the fall of France, a number of people in Britain began talking about peace. Hitler would have been delighted to make peace with Britain. Leave the borders as they were, and stop fighting. Churchill’s bombing raids against civilian German targets provoked a similar German response. Once Hitler began bombing British cities, talk of peace with Germany vanished. In this manner, Churchill solved one of his main political problems.

Nazi propagandists had promised the German people that no one could ever bomb them. This was a foolish promise to make. Once Churchill started bombing German cities, the effect on morale was devastating. Hitler the politician wanted to fix this morale problem, and bombing British cities accomplished that.

In 1921, Giulio Douhet published a highly influential book. He argued that the future of warfare involved using aircraft to launch terror attacks against enemy cities and civilian populations. He argued that killing a sufficient number of enemy civilians would break the enemy’s will to fight, thereby creating the basis for peace.

Douhet’s theories were widely embraced. The U.S. and Britain built large numbers of heavy, four engine bombers to carry out the terror raids Douhet had envisioned.

By 1941 at the latest, the basis of Douhet’s theories had been disproved. But that disproof did not lessen Allied willingness to turn German cities into rubble. As the war progressed, the physical destruction of the German people became an objective in its own right. This objective continued after the war was over, with measures such as JCS 1067 (a.k.a. the Morgenthau Plan).

As you pointed out, Germany’s prewar air force consisted of single engine bombers, such as Stukas. Or of two engine medium bombers. But it did not build the four engine/four propeller aircraft absolutely essential to putting Douhet’s theories into action.

During the 1930s, there had been some talk about a potential war between the United States and Britain, with Canada as the presumptive battleground. The possibility was real enough that the U.S., Canada, and Britain each drew up war plans. American war plans included the use of terror raids against Canadian cities. I think that Britain may have had similar plans for American cities, but of that I’m not entirely sure.

The use of Douhet-style tactics was a violation of the laws of war. For a bombardment of an enemy city to be legal, three things must be true:

1. The enemy city must have a military garrison present. (As opposed to being an open city.)
2. You or your allies must have an army near the city, or else rapidly approaching it.
3. Effort must be made to focus the bombardment on the military garrison, while minimizing civilian casualties. Put another way: all of your bombs should be aimed at the military garrison, even if some of those bombs miss.

Allied terror attacks against German cities were war crimes. Just as FDR’s “shoot anything that moves” air raids into the German countryside were also war crimes.

@Der:

The reason the Germans did not invest in building four engine bombers during the early years of WWII is that they did not plan to use their planes for the widespread terror bombing of civilians, as the allies did. Large planes like the British Lancaster and American B-17 were designed to carpet bomb huge areas of civilian housing indiscriminately in order to kill as many German citizens as possible and destroy their homes. On the other hand, the smaller German bombers were designed to hit tactical military targets with precision.

I don’t think that can be definitively stated as such. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the B-17 (especially) and the Avro Lancaster were designed with the intent to carpet bomb civilian targets. The B-17 was designed long before the war started (1935-ish) and the Lancaster was a redesigned version of the Manchester, because of the latter’s disappointing performance. The design criteria for such military bombers was generally to be able to carry the largest payload possible while having the greatest range possible. Their adapted tactical use came after the fact. Even the B-29, which was designed during the war, was not initially designed to be a “terror bomber”, but rather a high altitude strategic bomber. Only when this role was deemed fairly ineffective was the B-29 used as a low altitude, night attack, incendiary bomber. And the B-29 was better at and more notorious for its civilian bombing attacks than the B-17 or Lancaster were.

@Der:

I am not saying the Germans never did any terror bombing, but it was never near the tremendous scale and commitment of the allies. Clearly the overall mission of the Germans at the beginning was not to make this type of warfare an official strategy of theirs, evidenced by the design of their bombers. The German  terror rockets at the end of the war were named “V” for vengeance for all the horrific targeting of German civilians already done.

No, the Germans just killed their own civilians. Or were complicit to one degree or another.

I would also point out that the theory – and indeed the practice – of deliberately bombing civilians from the air to kill them and/or break their morale dates back to the First World War.  Captain Ernst Lehman of the German Army’s Zeppelin service in WWI was once asked for his technical opinion about the concept of using twelve to twenty airships to drop as many as 6,000 fire-bombs on London at night; he replied that “morality aside” it was quite workable.  Later, when Zeppelins had actually been put to use to bomb Britain, Captain Peter Strasser of the German Navy’s airship division (after whom Nazi Germany’s projected second Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier was named) wrote the following letter to his mother:

“We who strike the enemy where his heart beats have been slandered as “baby-killers” and “murderers of women.”  What we do is repugnant to us too, but necessary.  Very necessary.  Nowadays there is no such animal as a non-combatant: modern warfare is total warfare .  A soldier cannot function at the front without the factory worker, the farmer, and all the other providers behind him.  You and I, Mother, have discussed this subject, and I know you understand what I say.  My men are brave and honourable.  Their cause is holy, so how can they sin while doing their duty?  If what we do is frightful, then may frightfulness be Germany’s salvation.”

@CWO:

I would also point out that the theory – and indeed the practice – of deliberately bombing civilians from the air to kill them and/or break their morale dates back to the First World War.  Captain Ernst Lehman of the German Army’s Zeppelin service in WWI was once asked for his technical opinion about the concept of using twelve to twenty airships to drop as many as 6,000 fire-bombs on London at night; he replied that “morality aside” it was quite workable.  Later, when Zeppelins had actually been put to use to bomb Britain, Captain Peter Strasser of the German Navy’s airship division (after whom Nazi Germany’s projected second Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier was named) wrote the following letter to his mother:

“We who strike the enemy where his heart beats have been slandered as “baby-killers” and “murderers of women.”  What we do is repugnant to us too, but necessary.  Very necessary.  Nowadays there is no such animal as a non-combatant: modern warfare is total warfare .  A soldier cannot function at the front without the factory worker, the farmer, and all the other providers behind him.  You and I, Mother, have discussed this subject, and I know you understand what I say.  My men are brave and honourable.  Their cause is holy, so how can they sin while doing their duty?  If what we do is frightful, then may frightfulness be Germany’s salvation.”

Very true. The totality of war has been present for some time, long before WWII. And even within the scope of aerial bombardment, WWII was just an advancement rather than an invention.

My point with the Holocaust comment was to say, in a deliberately flippant manner, that no one side held a moral monopoly on their motivations or actions, however, some were worse than others. Might as well not point fingers when it sounds rather hypocritical.

While many points of the genesis for this discussion thread are true, what is the purpose in arguing a particular side to the point of being an apologist? I don’t think that it is just for ‘balanced history’… at least that is not how it reads to me.

@Der:

I am not saying the Germans never did any terror bombing, but it was never near the tremendous scale and commitment of the allies. Clearly the overall mission of the Germans at the beginning was not to make this type of warfare an official strategy of theirs, evidenced by the design of their bombers. The German  terror rockets at the end of the war were named “V” for vengeance for all the horrific targeting of German civilians already done.

The primary reason that the Germans did not engage in terror bombing to the “tremendous scale and commitment of the Allies” was because they simply could not, not because they had superior moral scruples and chose not to. Even at the beginning of the war during the Battle of Britain, at the height of their aerial power, Germany didn’t have enough airframes to conduct operations on a scale that the Allies did later. As the war progressed the situation only worsened. Critical materials were directed away from building a comparable amount of planes to other, more pressing needs or fanciful wishes. I don’t think it was for lack of desire to bomb cities though. After all, Hitler famously wanted to use the Me262 as a bomber rather than an interceptor. He wanted to bomb that Allies just as badly as they were bombing him, the only problem is that Hitler was incompetent, while the Allies were not. Germany was facing three of the world’s military and economic superpowers by herself and they were rapidly and aggressively limiting her industrial and military capabilities. There is no way that Germany could have effected an equivalent amount of destruction on the Allies via aerial bombardment.

@LHoffman:

I don’t think that can be definitively stated as such. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the B-17 (especially) and the Avro Lancaster were designed with the intent to carpet bomb civilian targets. The B-17 was designed long before the war started (1935-ish) and the Lancaster was a redesigned version of the Manchester, because of the latter’s disappointing performance. The design criteria for such military bombers was generally to be able to carry the largest payload possible while having the greatest range possible. Their adapted tactical use came after the fact. Even the B-29, which was designed during the war, was not initially designed to be a “terror bomber”, but rather a high altitude strategic bomber. Only when this role was deemed fairly ineffective was the B-29 used as a low altitude, night attack, incendiary bomber. And the B-29 was better at and more notorious for its civilian bombing attacks than the B-17 or Lancaster were.

No, the Germans just killed their own civilians. Or were complicit to one degree or another.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the B-17 (especially) and the Avro Lancaster
were designed with the intent to carpet bomb civilian targets.

Long before the war, Douhet’s theories had gained widespread acceptance among U.S. military brass. But not universal acceptance. Some British and American bomber designs might have been considered compromise solutions between advocates of terror bombing and those who favored strategically bombing factories. A bomber with a long range and high payload capacity could be used for either purpose. As the war progressed, advocates of terror bombing became more influential. After all, they had FDR’s wholehearted support.

No, the Germans just killed their own civilians.

In September of 1939, Britain and France imposed a food blockade against Germany. After joining the war, FDR also supported the food blockade. German government officials estimated that 20 - 30 million civilians would die as a result of the blockade. Rather than allowing the victims to be selected via random chance, the Nazis decided to starve or otherwise exterminate those deemed least useful to the war effort, or most racially undesirable. Jewish caloric consumption was to be reduced to zero. Residents of captured Soviet cities were to be starved to death, so that Germany would have the food with which to feed the millions of Soviet POWs forced to work in German weapons factories. However, the effort to starve captured Soviet cities was less successful than planned. Due to this lack of success, Germany didn’t have the food with which to feed its Soviet POWs, and millions starved to death.

Starting in 1939, Britain stopped accepting large numbers of Jewish refugees into Palestine. Prior to 1939, Palestine had been the major haven for Jews. Once the British government closed that door, Jews living in Germany had nowhere else to go. Unable to feed all the people within his own borders, and unable to export the Jewish population to Palestine or other British or French colonies, Hitler resorted to more extreme measures. The Jewish people’s heartbreaking loss was the Allies’ gain. The Holocaust became the centerpiece of their anti-Nazi propaganda effort. The Allies cynically used the Holocaust to distract attention from the millions they murdered before, during, and after the war; as well as to reduce sympathy for the victims of their mass murder.

No one side held a moral monopoly on their motivations or actions, however, some were worse than others.

This is true. As of August 1939, Nazi Germany had murdered hundreds of innocent people. Perhaps even 1,000. The Soviet Union had murdered approximately 20 million. For every prewar victim of Nazi murder, there were about 20,000 victims of prewar Soviet mass murder. Yet the major Western democracies didn’t even bat an eyelash before adopting pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi foreign policies. Preventing mass murder was simply not an Allied concern, regardless of whatever lies their propagandists may have told.

I don’t think that it is just for ‘balanced history’… at least that is not how it reads to me.

I have no interest in “balanced” history. But I’m very interested in accurate history. There are those who believe that the Soviet Union was morally superior to Nazi Germany, or that the two nations were morally equivalent. Such beliefs are not accurate.

Even at the beginning of the war during the Battle of Britain, at the height of their
aerial power, Germany didn’t have enough airframes to conduct operations
on a scale that the Allies did later.

This is true. Germany didn’t have the industrial capacity for a long war. It needed to focus on quickly winning tactical battles, not on a long, drawn-out conflict waged against enemy civilian targets. Its weapons mix reflected these military needs.

How might Hitler have acted if he’d had the industrial capacity necessary to build large fleets of strategic bombers? That’s difficult to say. Churchill and FDR seemed motivated by a genocidal urge to kill as many German civilians as possible. Hitler wanted to retaliate against that behavior. He wanted to punish the British and (ideally) the Americans, in hopes that these punishments would bring an end to the Allied bombing campaign against the German people. But I’m not sure he would have wanted to initiate this kind of terror warfare against the British or American people in the first place. Nowhere have I gotten the sense that he felt the same, genocidal urge to wipe out the British or American people that FDR and Churchill felt about wiping out the Germans. If we’re talking about how Hitler might have acted with respect to Slavic people, that’s a different story. It’s very possible–but not necessarily certain–that Hitler might have initiated a terror bombing campaign against Slavic cities.

Wow… I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I now see what I have uncovered here. Not really something I anticipated, but we’ll work through it.

@KurtGodel7:

It is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the B-17 (especially) and the Avro Lancaster
were designed with the intent to carpet bomb civilian targets.

Long before the war, Douhet’s theories had gained widespread acceptance among U.S. military brass. But not universal acceptance. Some British and American bomber designs might have been considered compromise solutions between advocates of terror bombing and those who favored strategically bombing factories. A bomber with a long range and high payload capacity could be used for either purpose. As the war progressed, advocates of terror bombing became more influential. After all, they had FDR’s wholehearted support.

Yes, as the war progressed, advocates for area/terror bombing came forth and that strategy was implemented. However, we were talking about pre-war or immediate beginning of the war bomber design and national policy. Since this is now essentially a debate in the vein of: “well, he hit me first!”

“When the war began on 1 September 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the neutral United States, issued an appeal to the major belligerents (Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland) to confine their air raids to military targets, and “under no circumstances undertake bombardment from the air of civilian populations in unfortified cities” The British and French agreed to abide by the request, with the British reply undertaking to “confine bombardment to strictly military objectives upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all their opponents”. Germany also agreed to abide by Roosevelt’s request and explained the bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was supposedly a fortified city�Germany did not have a policy of targeting enemy civilians as part of their doctrine prior to World War II.” - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Policy_at_the_start_of_the_war

Point being here that neither side, certainly not the Allies, wanted to use terror/area bombing as a tactical or strategic practice to begin with. War is an exercise in escalation, so it is not shocking that something like terror bombing occurred. To be outraged over it 70 years later smacks of some crusade. It is by this point unfortunate and tragic history that hopefully can be remembered and learned from.

@KurtGodel7:

No, the Germans just killed their own civilians.

In September of 1939, Britain and France imposed a food blockade against Germany. After joining the war, FDR also supported the food blockade. German government officials estimated that 20 - 30 million civilians would die as a result of the blockade. Rather than allowing the victims to be selected via random chance, the Nazis decided to starve or otherwise exterminate those deemed least useful to the war effort, or most racially undesirable. Jewish caloric consumption was to be reduced to zero. Residents of captured Soviet cities were to be starved to death, so that Germany would have the food with which to feed the millions of Soviet POWs forced to work in German weapons factories. However, the effort to starve captured Soviet cities was less successful than planned. Due to this lack of success, Germany didn’t have the food with which to feed its Soviet POWs, and millions starved to death.

Starting in 1939, Britain stopped accepting large numbers of Jewish refugees into Palestine. Prior to 1939, Palestine had been the major haven for Jews. Once the British government closed that door, Jews living in Germany had nowhere else to go. Unable to feed all the people within his own borders, and unable to export the Jewish population to Palestine or other British or French colonies, Hitler resorted to more extreme measures [UNDERSTATEMENT of MASSIVE PROPORTIONS]. The Jewish people’s heartbreaking loss was the Allies’ gain. The Holocaust became the centerpiece of their anti-Nazi propaganda effort. The Allies cynically used the Holocaust to distract attention from the millions they murdered before, during, and after the war; as well as to reduce sympathy for the victims of their mass murder.

Well… not sure what to say about this. I think the statements in bold speak for themselves.

Basically, you are defending the perpetration of the Holocaust on the grounds that it was 1) the merciful thing to do, 2) the practical thing to do and c) was in fact helpful to the Allies as propaganda.

I will readily admit that the Allies did not own up to all of their own mistakes or rather heinous actions, but there is still a difference between institutionalized and systemic mass murder and that prosecuted as a tactic intended to shorten a war. That is what I meant by some being worse than others.

@KurtGodel7:

No one side held a moral monopoly on their motivations or actions, however, some were worse than others.

This is true. As of August 1939, Nazi Germany had murdered hundreds of innocent people. Perhaps even 1,000. The Soviet Union had murdered approximately 20 million. For every prewar victim of Nazi murder, there were about 20,000 victims of prewar Soviet mass murder. Yet the major Western democracies didn’t even bat an eyelash before adopting pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi foreign policies. Preventing mass murder was simply not an Allied concern, regardless of whatever lies their propagandists may have told.

I assume you mean, “perhaps even thousands”, because “perhaps even 1,000” seems a bit ludicrous given the scale of persecution against Jews and other political enemies, even by 1939. What the Soviets did was pretty darn bad too, and in terms of numbers they were far worse than the Nazis. The Allies did not fight in WWII to stop or prevent mass murder, although preventing the expansion of governments who employed it became the goal.

@KurtGodel7:

I don’t think that it is just for ‘balanced history’… at least that is not how it reads to me.

I have no interest in “balanced” history. But I’m very interested in accurate history. There are those who believe that the Soviet Union was morally superior to Nazi Germany, or that the two nations were morally equivalent. Such beliefs are not accurate.

By balanced I meant that you (and seemingly Der Kuenstler) believe the weight of historical scholarship is vastly tipped in favor of an Allied “interpretation” and that you feel the need to offset that by telling the German “truth” side of it… thereby effecting a balance. If you cared utterly about accuracy and morality, I doubt you would give Germany/the Nazis such a pass on their faults, only because the Allies did some bad stuff too which is less-heralded.

I do not believe the Soviet Union (particularly of the 1930s - 1950s) was morally superior to Nazi Germany. Nor do I believe they were equivalent. Each case is unique in its different “bad-ness”. Moral equivalency on a socio-political-historical level is difficult to articulate or concretely argue about. There are many factors involved.

@KurtGodel7:

Even at the beginning of the war during the Battle of Britain, at the height of their
aerial power, Germany didn’t have enough airframes to conduct operations
on a scale that the Allies did later.

This is true. Germany didn’t have the industrial capacity for a long war. It needed to focus on quickly winning tactical battles, not on a long, drawn-out conflict waged against enemy civilian targets. Its weapons mix reflected these military needs.

Does this imply that because Germany could not, or could not afford to, terror bomb to the degree the Allies did that the Allies should not have done it? Ignoring whatever morality is involved, war is not fair and if an advantage is able to be had, it will be utilized. Just because Germany was incapable of terror bombing huge areas does not mean the Allies were unfair or took advantage of the poor Germans because they could do it.

If, as some of your or Der Kuenstler’s comments suggest, Germany was not fighting a war of ‘world conquest’, there was little need for them to develop large, long range and high payload aircraft. All of their objectives would be land based and near at hand on the European continent. The Western Allies on the other hand, were removed from the primary combat areas by significant distances and required such heavy aircraft to fight the enemy effectively. Maybe that is also a reason they developed such weapons, before and during the war.

@KurtGodel7:

How might Hitler have acted if he’d had the industrial capacity necessary to build large fleets of strategic bombers? That’s difficult to say. Churchill and FDR seemed motivated by a genocidal urge to kill as many German civilians as possible. Hitler wanted to retaliate against that behavior. He wanted to punish the British and (ideally) the Americans, in hopes that these punishments would bring an end to the Allied bombing campaign against the German people. But I’m not sure he would have wanted to initiate this kind of terror warfare against the British or American people in the first place. Nowhere have I gotten the sense that he felt the same, genocidal urge to wipe out the British or American people that FDR and Churchill felt about wiping out the Germans. If we’re talking about how Hitler might have acted with respect to Slavic people, that’s a different story. It’s very possible–but not necessarily certain–that Hitler might have initiated a terror bombing campaign against Slavic cities.

So Hitler (hypothetically) initiating terror bombing against slavic civilians is okay? It is hard to tell if that is what you are saying or not. I do not wish to put words in you mouth. In any event, he didn’t need to because the intention was for them to be killed (if they fit the description), displaced from their homes to the east or put in labor camps. I don’t see how any of those options (some of which actually happened) would be morally superior to a hypothetical terror bombing.

The fact is that Hitler did initiate terror bombing against England. Just because it was not as destructive as the Allied campaign does not change the fact that it was done. There is nothing genocidal about the Allied bombing campaign against Germany. Genocide is typically understood as the purposeful killing of a large group of ethnic people simply because they are part of that group. The Allied bombing campaign was harsh, ruthless, unrelenting, use whatever words you want, but it was not directed at Germans because they were Germans and the Allies wanted them all dead. If that was the case, why didn’t the Allies kill all the Germans when they actually invaded Germany? Why did they rebuild cities and provide for all the German civilians post-war? The Allies bombed Germany for the same purpose that you assert Hitler “wanted to retaliate” for: to stop the war or discourage its continuation.

@LHoffman:

Wow… I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I now see what I have uncovered here. Not really something I anticipated, but we’ll work through it.

Yes, as the war progressed, advocates for area/terror bombing came forth and that strategy was implemented. However, we were talking about pre-war or immediate beginning of the war bomber design and national policy. Since this is now essentially a debate in the vein of: “well, he hit me first!”

“When the war began on 1 September 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the neutral United States, issued an appeal to the major belligerents (Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Poland) to confine their air raids to military targets, and “under no circumstances undertake bombardment from the air of civilian populations in unfortified cities” The British and French agreed to abide by the request, with the British reply undertaking to “confine bombardment to strictly military objectives upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all their opponents”. Germany also agreed to abide by Roosevelt’s request and explained the bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was supposedly a fortified city. Germany did not have a policy of targeting enemy civilians as part of their doctrine prior to World War II.” - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Policy_at_the_start_of_the_war

Point being here that neither side, certainly not the Allies, wanted to use terror/area bombing as a tactical or strategic practice to begin with. War is an exercise in escalation, so it is not shocking that something like terror bombing occurred. To be outraged over it 70 years later smacks of some crusade. It is by this point unfortunate and tragic history that hopefully can be remembered and learned from.

Well… not sure what to say about this. I think the statements in bold speak for themselves.

Basically, you are defending the perpetration of the Holocaust on the grounds that it was 1) the merciful thing to do, 2) the practical thing to do and c) was in fact helpful to the Allies as propaganda.

I will readily admit that the Allies did not own up to all of their own mistakes or rather heinous actions, but there is still a difference between institutionalized and systemic mass murder and that prosecuted as a tactic intended to shorten a war. That is what I meant by some being worse than others.

I assume you mean, “perhaps even thousands”, because “perhaps even 1,000” seems a bit ludicrous given the scale of persecution against Jews and other political enemies, even by 1939. What the Soviets did was pretty darn bad too, and in terms of numbers they were far worse than the Nazis. The Allies did not fight in WWII to stop or prevent mass murder, although preventing the expansion of governments who employed it became the goal.

By balanced I meant that you (and seemingly Der Kuenstler) believe the weight of historical scholarship is vastly tipped in favor of an Allied “interpretation” and that you feel the need to offset that by telling the German “truth” side of it… thereby effecting a balance. If you cared utterly about accuracy and morality, I doubt you would give Germany/the Nazis such a pass on their faults, only because the Allies did some bad stuff too which is less-heralded.

I do not believe the Soviet Union (particularly of the 1930s - 1950s) was morally superior to Nazi Germany. Nor do I believe they were equivalent. Each case is unique in its different “bad-ness”. Moral equivalency on a socio-political-historical level is difficult to articulate or concretely argue about. There are many factors involved.

Does this imply that because Germany could not, or could not afford to, terror bomb to the degree the Allies did that the Allies should not have done it? Ignoring whatever morality is involved, war is not fair and if an advantage is able to be had, it will be utilized. Just because Germany was incapable of terror bombing huge areas does not mean the Allies were unfair or took advantage of the poor Germans because they could do it.

If, as some of your or Der Kuenstler’s comments suggest, Germany was not fighting a war of ‘world conquest’, there was little need for them to develop large, long range and high payload aircraft. All of their objectives would be land based and near at hand on the European continent. The Western Allies on the other hand, were removed from the primary combat areas by significant distances and required such heavy aircraft to fight the enemy effectively. Maybe that is also a reason they developed such weapons, before and during the war.

So Hitler (hypothetically) initiating terror bombing against slavic civilians is okay? It is hard to tell if that is what you are saying or not. I do not wish to put words in you mouth. In any event, he didn’t need to because the intention was for them to be killed (if they fit the description), displaced from their homes to the east or put in labor camps. I don’t see how any of those options (some of which actually happened) would be morally superior to a hypothetical terror bombing.

The fact is that Hitler did initiate terror bombing against England. Just because it was not as destructive as the Allied campaign does not change the fact that it was done. There is nothing genocidal about the Allied bombing campaign against Germany. Genocide is typically understood as the purposeful killing of a large group of ethnic people simply because they are part of that group. The Allied bombing campaign was harsh, ruthless, unrelenting, use whatever words you want, but it was not directed at Germans because they were Germans and the Allies wanted them all dead. If that was the case, why didn’t the Allies kill all the Germans when they actually invaded Germany? Why did they rebuild cities and provide for all the German civilians post-war? The Allies bombed Germany for the same purpose that you assert Hitler “wanted to retaliate” for: to stop the war or discourage its continuation.

Point being here that neither side, certainly not the Allies, wanted to use terror/area bombing as a tactical or strategic practice to begin with.

Most politicians are very accustomed to lying. A public declaration against terror bombing is not in itself evidence that either the Germans or the Allies had rejected the concept. Weapons manufacturing and weapons design are evidence of intent. Prior to the war, the British and Americans designed and built bombers well-suited for terror raids. The Germans did not. In 1940, Churchill ordered aerial attacks against German civilian targets. That decision took Hitler by surprise, as did the resultant, devastating effect on German morale. Hitler retaliated by ordering attacks against British civilian targets. Whether Hitler’s response was justified is perhaps a subject for another discussion.

The Allies had justified their massive scale, late war terror attacks (Dresden, Hamburg, etc.) on the basis that they were just retaliating against similar raids against Britain. That justification rings a little hollow, considering the Allies were the ones who started the terror attacks in the first place.

To be outraged over [terror bombing] 70 years later smacks of some crusade.

There are many who are outraged by the Holocaust over 70 years later. The victims of Allied terror bombing were neither more nor less human than the victims of the Holocaust.

Basically, you are defending the perpetration of the Holocaust on the grounds that it
was 1) the merciful thing to do, 2) the practical thing to do and c) was in fact helpful to the Allies as propaganda.

The Holocaust was indefensible. 6 million Jews died needlessly and tragically. Someone needs to take the blame for that. The question is, who?

When the Allies chose to impose a food blockade against Germany, they knew full well that tens of millions of innocent people would die as a result. They knew the Nazis would largely decide which people lived and which died. They also knew that their own immigration policies prevented Hitler from exporting Jews to French or British colonies. Had Hitler chosen to keep the Jews alive, he would have needed to starve or exterminate an equivalent number of non-Jews. Had Hitler selected that option–had he chosen to keep the Jews alive by starving an additional 6 million Slavs, or 6 million non-Jewish Germans–the result would have been as tragic as the Holocaust.

By imposing such a devastating food situation on Germany, the Allies gave Hitler three choices:

1. Starve the Germans
2. Starve the Slavs
3. Starve the Jews

Choice 3 was not alone sufficient to solve Germany’s food problems, so Hitler chose all of 3 and a fair amount of 2. Choice 3 created very significant propaganda benefits for the Allies. Choice 2 also gave the Allies large benefits, and may go a long way toward explaining why the Soviet people chose to fight for the man who’d been murdering them by the millions.

The only peace terms the Allies ever offered Nazi Germany consisted of unconditional surrender. A group of anti-Nazi German generals planned to overthrow Hitler and make peace with the Western democracies. In their negotiations with FDR’s administration, they learned that FDR made no distinction between a Nazi and non-Nazi regime. FDR demanded unconditional surrender to all the Allies, including the Soviet Union. Given that Stalin had murdered millions of Ukrainians for resisting collectivization, the Germans knew what Soviet occupation would mean for them.

The Allies didn’t impose the food blockade because they were seeking some kind of negotiated peace. They imposed it because they wanted large numbers of innocent civilians dead. The blockade worked: tens of millions of innocent people did die, including 6 million Jews. The Allies benefited from those deaths. The Holocaust was fuel for their propaganda machine. The starvation of the Slavs greatly aided Stalin’s effort to motivate his own people. The starvation of Soviet POWs in German weapons factories harmed Germany’s military output.

I assume you mean, “perhaps even thousands”, because “perhaps even 1,000” seems a
bit ludicrous given the scale of persecution against Jews and other political enemies, even by 1939.

I did a little research and stand corrected. I had originally thought the Nazis “only” killed 1000 people prior to the war. However, 2,000 - 2,500 Jews died as a result of Kristallnacht. 91 were killed during or immediately after the rioting itself. But a number of Jews were beaten to death by concentration camp guards acting without orders. The Nazi government was responsible for putting those Jews in the concentration camps in the first place, as well as for filling the guards’ heads with anti-Semitic propaganda. For that reason, all 2000 - 2,500 deaths should count towards the Nazis’ prewar total, even though the guards were acting without orders.

Including other prewar killings, the Nazis’ prewar total was probably about 3,000. Compared to about 20 million for the Soviet Union.

So Hitler (hypothetically) initiating terror bombing against Slavic civilians is okay?

Of course not. The Slavs were neither more nor less human than the Germans, Americans, or British. Had Hitler exterminated 30,000 Slavs in a civilian bombing raid, it would have been just as tragic as Dresden.

If that was the case, why didn’t the Allies kill all the Germans when they actually invaded Germany?

The postwar planning of the FDR and Truman administrations was based on the Morgenthau Plan. This plan resulted in the starvation of large numbers of Germans during the postwar period. A report by Herbert Hoover, from March 1947, stated the following:

There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a “pastoral state”. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.

Fortunately, the Morgenthau Plan resulted in the postwar deaths of “only” 6 million Germans; not the 25 million which had apparently been planned. As an aside: it should not be thought that those 6 million deaths are the only postwar mass murders for which the Allies were responsible. There were plenty more mass murders in addition to the Morgenthau Plan.

Why did they rebuild cities and provide for all the German civilians post-war?

Prior to 1948, American politicians came in two flavors: isolationists, and pro-communist interventionists. The election of 1948 saw a new breed of American politician: anti-communist interventionists. As the German people slowly starved under the Morgenthau Plan, increasing numbers of Germans embraced communism. Motivated by a combination of humanitarianism and anti-communism, the anti-communist interventionists pushed through the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan ended the starvation deliberately caused by the Morgenthau Plan, and set Germany on the path to economic growth. None of which changes the fact that FDR and Truman murdered very large numbers of German civilians. The limiting factor in these murders appears to have been physical and political constraints. There is nothing to suggest either president felt any moral inhibitions about killing as many German civilians as possible.

@CWO:

I would also point out that the theory – and indeed the practice – of deliberately bombing civilians from the air to kill them and/or break their morale dates back to the First World War.  Captain Ernst Lehman of the German Army’s Zeppelin service in WWI was once asked for his technical opinion about the concept of using twelve to twenty airships to drop as many as 6,000 fire-bombs on London at night; he replied that “morality aside” it was quite workable.  Later, when Zeppelins had actually been put to use to bomb Britain, Captain Peter Strasser of the German Navy’s airship division (after whom Nazi Germany’s projected second Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier was named) wrote the following letter to his mother:

"We who strike the enemy where his heart beats have been slandered as “baby-killers” and "murderers of women.“  What we do is repugnant to us too, but necessary.  Very necessary.  Nowadays there is no such animal as a non-combatant: modern warfare is total warfare .  A soldier cannot function at the front without the factory worker, the farmer, and all the other providers behind him.  You and I, Mother, have discussed this subject, and I know you understand what I say.  My men are brave and honourable.  Their cause is holy, so how can they sin while doing their duty?  If what we do is frightful, then may frightfulness be Germany’s salvation.”

I believe aerial bombing to break morale goes back even farther.

During the dark ages, armies used to catapult the dead into an enemy castle/city under siege, #1. to spread sickness/disease #2. being bombed with the corpses of your country men, tends to spoil the mood.

The Holocaust was indefensible. 6 million Jews died needlessly and tragically. Someone needs to take the blame for that. The question is, who?

When the Allies chose to impose a food blockade against Germany, they knew full well that tens of millions of innocent people would die as a result. They knew the Nazis would largely decide which people lived and which died. They also knew that their own immigration policies prevented Hitler from exporting Jews to French or British colonies. Had Hitler chosen to keep the Jews alive, he would have needed to starve or exterminate an equivalent number of non-Jews. Had Hitler selected that option–had he chosen to keep the Jews alive by starving an additional 6 million Slavs, or 6 million non-Jewish Germans–the result would have been as tragic as the Holocaust.

By imposing such a devastating food situation on Germany, the Allies gave Hitler three choices:

1. Starve the Germans
2. Starve the Slavs
3. Starve the Jews

Choice 3 was not alone sufficient to solve Germany’s food problems, so Hitler chose all of 3 and a fair amount of 2. Choice 3 created very significant propaganda benefits for the Allies. Choice 2 also gave the Allies large benefits, and may go a long way toward explaining why the Soviet people chose to fight for the man who’d been murdering them by the millions.

The only peace terms the Allies ever offered Nazi Germany consisted of unconditional surrender. A group of anti-Nazi German generals planned to overthrow Hitler and make peace with the Western democracies. In their negotiations with FDR’s administration, they learned that FDR made no distinction between a Nazi and non-Nazi regime. FDR demanded unconditional surrender to all the Allies, including the Soviet Union. Given that Stalin had murdered millions of Ukrainians for resisting collectivization, the Germans knew what Soviet occupation would mean for them.

The Allies didn’t impose the food blockade because they were seeking some kind of negotiated peace. They imposed it because they wanted large numbers of innocent civilians dead. The blockade worked: tens of millions of innocent people did die, including 6 million Jews. The Allies benefited from those deaths. The Holocaust was fuel for their propaganda machine. The starvation of the Slavs greatly aided Stalin’s effort to motivate his own people. The starvation of Soviet POWs in German weapons factories harmed Germany’s military output.

I assume you mean, “perhaps even thousands”, because “perhaps even 1,000” seems a
bit ludicrous given the scale of persecution against Jews and other political enemies, even by 1939.

I did a little research and stand corrected. I had originally thought the Nazis “only” killed 1000 people prior to the war. However, 2,000 - 2,500 Jews died as a result of Kristallnacht. 91 were killed during or immediately after the rioting itself. But a number of Jews were beaten to death by concentration camp guards acting without orders. The Nazi government was responsible for putting those Jews in the concentration camps in the first place, as well as for filling the guards’ heads with anti-Semitic propaganda. For that reason, all 2000 - 2,500 deaths should count towards the Nazis’ prewar total, even though the guards were acting without orders.

Including other prewar killings, the Nazis’ prewar total was probably about 3,000. Compared to about 20 million for the Soviet Union.

So Hitler (hypothetically) initiating terror bombing against Slavic civilians is okay?

Of course not. The Slavs were neither more nor less human than the Germans, Americans, or British. Had Hitler exterminated 30,000 Slavs in a civilian bombing raid, it would have been just as tragic as Dresden.

If that was the case, why didn’t the Allies kill all the Germans when they actually invaded Germany?

The postwar planning of the FDR and Truman administrations was based on the Morgenthau Plan. This plan resulted in the starvation of large numbers of Germans during the postwar period. A report by Herbert Hoover, from March 1947, stated the following:

---

There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a “pastoral state”. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.

---

Fortunately, the Morgenthau Plan resulted in the postwar deaths of “only” 6 million Germans; not the 25 million which had apparently been planned. As an aside: it should not be thought that those 6 million deaths are the only postwar mass murders for which the Allies were responsible. There were plenty more mass murders in addition to the Morgenthau Plan.

You still going off topic with this same MO. How many times or ways can you transmigate innocuous threads into the Jews. This is about four engine bombers. Holy crap.

@Imperious:

You still going off topic with this same MO. How many times or ways can you transmigate innocuous threads into the Jews. This is about four engine bombers. Holy crap.

If the OP feels I’ve derailed his thread, and is displeased with me due to the turn the discussion has taken, I’d encourage him to express his displeasure here. It was never my intention to harm his thread, and I hope he doesn’t think I’ve done so.

My apologies to Der Kuenstler. I rather did jack his thread.

I did some investigating myself yesterday and have been reading up on Mr. Prante’s website. Your initial post here was essentially all his words anyway.

One thing I will say about him so far… if I may. He is a “truther”, a conspiracy theorist, whose associates harbor many of the same views. He is one of those who believes that September 11 was orchestrated by the US government. His views on Germany are just as… shall we say… distorted and founded upon the belief that Germany has been victimized for over 100 years by virtually all the other world powers. He believes that Germany today is still an occupied country and that its current government is illegitimate. (Not exaggerating or putting words in his mouth, this is actually what he believes.) This is the lens through which he interprets history. That is certainly his right, but I am not sure where it is going to get him or who he is trying to convince. As i said above, it was he who is the author of Der Kuenstler’s initial post:   http://justice4germans.com/wwii-bombing/   This video/audio interview with Deanna Spingola (another conspiracy woman) is particularly … interesting to say the least. I am not all the way through it yet.

I do agree with him on some minor things, such as German censorship and self-hating based on doings of WWII and the Holocaust. That history was terrible, but Germans today are not the people who did such things and should not have perennial guilt over it. They should recognize it for the evil that it was and never forget it, but not take the blame for it today. German WWII veterans deserve just as much respect as any of those from the Allies. The vast majority were simple soldiers doing their duty for country and not committing war crimes. Germans should always be differentiated from Nazis, because not all Germans were Nazis, not even most, even though it is common to refer to WWII Germans as such.

Beyond that… the guy is a little far out. But that is all I will say here, unless this discussion progresses further.

I will defend my statements about B-29s and the Holocaust because they are relevant. You (Der Kuenstler) made the initial post, which baited a number of underlying, but related issues, including Allied intent and complicity to murder and design theory behind aircraft. I took that bait because I wanted to see exactly what your intentions were and I did find out. However, my points were completely related to your post. We can draw conclusions from other bomber designs that would impact the discussion at hand, which is why I brought up the B-29. Similarly, your rather pointed comments towards the Allies (who I am defending for the sake of argument) about their genocidal murdering of Germans lacked any historical balance and strongly implies a “woe-is-me” tone with a healthy dose of righteous indignation. As if the Germans were the decent “angels” you claim to not represent. The Holocaust, while incredibly obvious and bordering on over-exposure this day in age, is not nonsensical and will always be relevant to the calculus of German involvement in the Second World War. It cannot just be brushed aside or ignored as not pertinent.

Marc’s comments were also relevant. Your post insinuated many things, one of which being that the Germans never had intention to terror bomb while the Allies did. Marc disproved this with some very specific evidence and more than that, showed that regardless of who the tactics were perpetuated by, they have been in practice or in theory for some amount of time prior to 1945 Dresden, Stuttgart, Hamburg and the like. Calling other historical information irrelevant, simply because it does not fit into your very narrowly defined narrative is incredibly shortsighted and, again, smacks of some agenda. Not truth.

In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion and will continue to do so as long as it lasts. You have my respect.

@LHoffman:

The primary reason that the Germans did not engage in terror bombing to the “tremendous scale and commitment of the Allies” was because they simply could not

The above definitely proved true.

I might also add that Hitler originally prohibited attacks against UK civilians in anticipation of making an early peace with the British.

So it is probably true that the German military didn’t originally plan on this kind of aerial warfare for WWII… but not because they weren’t willing to conduct it.

@LHoffman:

My apologies to Der Kuenstler. I rather did jack his thread.

I did some investigating myself yesterday and have been reading up on Mr. Prante’s website. Your initial post here was essentially all his words anyway.

One thing I will say about him so far… if I may. He is a “truther”, a conspiracy theorist, whose associates harbor many of the same views. He is one of those who believes that September 11 was orchestrated by the US government. His views on Germany are just as… shall we say… distorted and founded upon the belief that Germany has been victimized for over 100 years by virtually all the other world powers. He believes that Germany today is still an occupied country and that its current government is illegitimate. (Not exaggerating or putting words in his mouth, this is actually what he believes.) This is the lens through which he interprets history. That is certainly his right, but I am not sure where it is going to get him or who he is trying to convince. As i said above, it was he who is the author of Der Kuenstler’s initial post:   http://justice4germans.com/wwii-bombing/   This video/audio interview with Deanna Spingola (another conspiracy woman) is particularly … interesting to say the least. I am not all the way through it yet.

I do agree with him on some minor things, such as German censorship and self-hating based on doings of WWII and the Holocaust. That history was terrible, but Germans today are not the people who did such things and should not have perennial guilt over it. They should recognize it for the evil that it was and never forget it, but not take the blame for it today. German WWII veterans deserve just as much respect as any of those from the Allies. The vast majority were simple soldiers doing their duty for country and not committing war crimes. Germans should always be differentiated from Nazis, because not all Germans were Nazis, not even most, even though it is common to refer to WWII Germans as such.

Beyond that… the guy is a little far out. But that is all I will say here, unless this discussion progresses further.

I will defend my statements about B-29s and the Holocaust because they are relevant. You (Der Kuenstler) made the initial post, which baited a number of underlying, but related issues, including Allied intent and complicity to murder and design theory behind aircraft. I took that bait because I wanted to see exactly what your intentions were and I did find out. However, my points were completely related to your post. We can draw conclusions from other bomber designs that would impact the discussion at hand, which is why I brought up the B-29. Similarly, your rather pointed comments towards the Allies (who I am defending for the sake of argument) about their genocidal murdering of Germans lacked any historical balance and strongly implies a “woe-is-me” tone with a healthy dose of righteous indignation. As if the Germans were the decent “angels” you claim to not represent. The Holocaust, while incredibly obvious and bordering on over-exposure this day in age, is not nonsensical and will always be relevant to the calculus of German involvement in the Second World War. It cannot just be brushed aside or ignored as not pertinent.

Marc’s comments were also relevant. Your post insinuated many things, one of which being that the Germans never had intention to terror bomb while the Allies did. Marc disproved this with some very specific evidence and more than that, showed that regardless of who the tactics were perpetuated by, they have been in practice or in theory for some amount of time prior to 1945 Dresden, Stuttgart, Hamburg and the like. Calling other historical information irrelevant, simply because it does not fit into your very narrowly defined narrative is incredibly shortsighted and, again, smacks of some agenda. Not truth.

In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion and will continue to do so as long as it lasts. You have my respect.

He is one of those who believes that September 11 was orchestrated by the US government.

For an Amish person living among Amish, a trusting attitude might make sense. For a person heavily involved with a violent drug cartel, a little less trust might be in order. The point here being that there is no one right level of trust. It’s circumstance-dependent. Mr. Prante obviously has a lower level of trust in the American government than does the average citizen. That is not in itself evidence of a lack of credibility on his part–merely a difference in perspective. There are times when the U.S. government’s actions are decided by good people. And other times when they have been chosen by fundamentally evil people. Neither a trusting nor distrusting attitude toward the American government will be justified 100% of the time.

German WWII veterans deserve just as much respect as any of those from the Allies.

Agreed.

The Holocaust, while incredibly obvious and bordering on over-exposure this
day in age, is not nonsensical and will always be relevant to the calculus
of German involvement in the Second World War.

Prior to WWII, Hitler worked to export Germany’s Jewish population.

The large numbers of Jews entering Palestine led to the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine.

The Nazis’ genocide against the Jews began only after Britain closed Palestine to additional large-scale Jewish immigration, and only after Britain and the other Allies used their food blockade to create famine conditions inside Germany. If I deliberately strand a group of people on an island with nothing to eat, and if I leave them there for months, I do not then get to pass judgment on them for engaging in cannibalism. Nor were the Allies in any position to pass judgement about the Holocaust.

your rather pointed comments towards the Allies . . . about their genocidal murdering of Germans lacked any historical balance

During WWII, the Nazis had drawn up plans to forcibly relocate 30 million Poles east after the war had ended. If Germany was still in the midst of famine conditions, the death of some of these Poles along the way would have been considered an acceptable way of reducing pressure on the food supply. But there were no plans to engage in widespread killings of Poles unless the Allied food blockade was still in place.

Compare that to the killings in which the Allies engaged during the postwar period.

• Approximately six million German civilians were killed in Western democratic occupation zones as a result of the Morgenthau Plan.

• Millions of civilian refugees from the Soviet Union, Baltic States, and Yugoslavia were forcibly returned to Soviet custody. “The Americans returned to Plattling visibly shamefaced. Before their departure from the rendezvous in the forest, many had seen rows of bodies already hanging from the branches of nearby trees.”[11]

• The Western democracies handed over large numbers of German POWs to the Soviets, which was not much different than a death sentence.

• German POWs in French or American custody often starved to death.

• Soviet soldiers who’d surrendered to Germany were forcibly returned to Soviet custody after the war. Stalin regarded these men as traitors, and treated them accordingly.

The Nazis were unsentimental about shedding innocent blood; if deemed necessary for the war effort. They did not adhere to the laws of war. That does not change the fact that Stalin was pure evil, and FDR was the eager associate of evil. Churchill was a more squeamish associate, and sometimes felt bad about the postwar world the Allied victory had created. For example, he seems to have genuinely hoped for a democracy in postwar Poland. He stopped turning Soviet refugees over to Stalin, after it became clear that Stalin was murdering large numbers of refugees delivered to him. Churchill was no angel of light, as the people of Dresden might have noticed. But of the Big Three Allied leaders, he was probably the least evil.

But there were no plans to engage in widespread killings of Poles unless the Allied food blockade was still in place.

This is from Wikipedia, and I’m posting from work so I don’t have time for further research ATM, but I feel this link renders your “no plan for genocide of Poles” point moot.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Respect for all involved in this important discussion.

@Lieutenant:

But there were no plans to engage in widespread killings of Poles unless the Allied food blockade was still in place.

This is from Wikipedia, and I’m posting from work so I don’t have time for further research ATM, but I feel this link renders your “no plan for genocide of Poles” point moot.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Respect for all involved in this important discussion.

Thanks for the link. The Wikipedia article you cited seems reasonably well-sourced. It’s certainly not something I’m prepared to dismiss out of hand.

However, my prior statement about Germany’s postwar plans was based on The Wages of Destruction, which is one of the two best history books I’ve read. (On any subject, not just WWII.) I’m not prepared to retract that statement without first doing considerable digging.

As the Wikipedia article noted, there are no extant copies of Generalplan Ost. There are two possible reasons for this:

1. The plans were destroyed by the Germans, to hide incriminating evidence.
2. The plans were destroyed by the Allies, so that they could make Generalplan Ost seem worse than it was.

In the absence of a physical copy of Generalplan Ost itself, we also have the testimony of Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski; who testified for the prosecution during the Nuremberg Trials. However, Nuremberg testimonies are potentially suspect. Several years ago, one of Britain’s most prestigious newspapers–The Guardian printed an article about Bad Nenndorf, a British concentration camp used in 1946.

Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS . . .

Threats to execute prisoners, or to arrest, torture and murder their wives and children were considered “perfectly proper”, on the grounds that such threats were never carried out. . . .

Naked prisoners were handcuffed back-to-back and forced to stand before open windows in midwinter. Frostbite became common. One victim of the cold cell punishment was Buttlar, who swallowed the spoon handle to escape. An anti-Nazi, he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. “I never in all those two years had undergone such treatments,” he said.

Testimony obtained through torture or threats to a victim’s family is unreliable. Anti-Nazi testimony used in the Nuremberg trials is not reliable evidence.

The Wikipedia article you cited stated that while there was no copy of Generalplan Ost, copies were found of related memos and abstracts. I have seen it alleged that in 1945 and '46, the British and American governments created “German” government documents in English, then had them translated into German to incriminate the Nazis. I have not tracked down this allegation to determine its validity. But I have to assume that a government willing to use the tactics of Bad Nenndorf would also be would also be willing to create fake documents.

When I read Wages of Destruction, I got the sense that Tooze would accuse the Nazis of everything of which they were legitimately guilty, but would not naively swallow made-up Allied propaganda. For example, he stated that the Nazis had planned to murder 11 million Jews, because the measure was seen necessary to solve their food problems. On the other hand, the fact that he mentioned those food problems in the first place (as opposed to making it appear as though the Nazis could have fed everyone in their borders) means he’s far more accurate and reliable than the typical, heavily pro-Allied historian. The fact that Tooze’s book does not support the description of Generalplan Ost found in the Wikipedia article leads me to believe that the evidence for the existence of such a plan is less than conclusive.

Well I recognize that Germany could have built such aircraft, but that doesn’t mean that they could have deployed them effectively or fast enough.

• How much time would design/development and construction require?

• How many such bombers (and support aircraft) would be required to overcome British air defense systems?

• If answers to the above are not impractical, then did Germany make a strategic blunder in not switching gears after 1940? Or would the expense have made it been a poor choice anyways (morality aside)?