Shocking Statistic

[Ozexpatriate]

While moved on perhaps from my first post and now slightly tempered by a few more facts, I still cannot quite believe the original shocking statistic".

It is a big claim. After he discussion here, it feels more plausible to me than it did at first, but a healthy skepticism in such 'factoids' is reasonable.

 

It certainly makes you think and ponder just what it was like.

Indeed it does.

 

Our shared history is understandably Anglo/Euro-centric and despite the damage to life and property in Britain, the English speaking peoples suffered much less than other Allied countries. The combined civilian population losses during the war years in countries like the Soviet Union (~13M), China (~15M?), Poland (>5M), Dutch East Indies (~4M), India (~2M) and French Indochina (1.5M), outnumbered the total of ALL other casualties (military and civilian) in the second world war. The magnitude of this horror is unspeakable.

[Andy Y]

Learnt something new today!

 

These Fu-Go were intended to start forest fires in the heavily forested northwest and otherwise create fear and panic.

 

Although I knew about those I never realised we let off so many - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outward

[Kenton]

Our shared history is understandably Anglo/Euro-centric and despite the damage to life and property in Britain, the English speaking peoples suffered much less than other Allied countries. The combined civilian population losses during the war years in countries like the Soviet Union (~13M), China (~15M?), Poland (>5M), Dutch East Indies (~4M), India (~2M) and French Indochina (1.5M), outnumbered the total of ALL other casualties (military and civilian) in the second world war.  The magnitude of this horror is unspeakable.

 

And please let's not forger Germany - they may have been the enemy but they were bombed pretty intensively too. We as a country have no excuse to stand alone in claiming bomb damage and civilian casualties. It might not be politically correct or in tune with the propaganda but Germany suffered too.

[Fat Controller]

And please let's not forger Germany - they may have been the enemy but they were bombed pretty intensively too. We as a country have no excuse to stand alone in claiming bomb damage and civilian casualties. It might not be politically correct or in tune with the propaganda but Germany suffered too.

Indeed. We learnt a lot from them about how best to destroy urban centres and wreak the maximum of havoc upon a civilian population.. 'As ye sow, so shall ye reap' This is one reason I suspect the statistical reporting of the German campaign to have been carried out in a pretty scientific manner, as it would serve as a basis for the Allied campaign from 1942 onwards.

The effect of the Allied attacks on Germany was more effective, as the Allies didn't change their policy frequently as the Germans did (the Germans went from attacking RAF stations to bombing industrial centres to the Baedecker raids, without any one tactic being followed to a successful conclusion.), but kept, as Churchill phrased it, 'buggering on', at immense cost to the poor sods who had to implement the policy. I have limited sympathy for the Germans- as Basil Fawlty put it 'You started it..' They had already shown their intentions towards civilian targets in Spain from 1936 onwards; it should not have come as a surprise to find they were repaid many times for that.

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed. We learnt a lot from them about how best to destroy urban centres and wreak the maximum of havoc upon a civilian population.. 'As ye sow, so shall ye reap' This is one reason I suspect the statistical reporting of the German campaign to have been carried out in a pretty scientific manner, as it would serve as a basis for the Allied campaign from 1942 onwards.

The effect of the Allied attacks on Germany was more effective, as the Allies didn't change their policy frequently as the Germans did (the Germans went from attacking RAF stations to bombing industrial centres to the Baedecker raids, without any one tactic being followed to a successful conclusion.), but kept, as Churchill phrased it, 'buggering on', at immense cost to the poor sods who had to implement the policy. I have limited sympathy for the Germans- as Basil Fawlty put it 'You started it..' They had already shown their intentions towards civilian targets in Spain from 1936 onwards; it should not have come as a surprise to find they were repaid many times for that.

While the horror visited upon the Germans by allied (especially RAF) bombing was massive I tend to share your view Brian - they did indeed sow the wind and reap the whirlwind and it has to be acknowledged that Bomber Command, and especially 5 Group, developed a remarkable expertise whatever one might think about the rights or wrongs of the bomber campaign. And it is disgusting that the last survivors of a group of very brave young men who ventured out into dark and dangerous skies had to wait until old age to see their bravery and the deaths of their comrades properly recognised.

 

The material effectiveness of the allied bombing of Germany was the subject of intensive post war study (in addition to what was studied at the time from aerial photographs) and the Germans kept detailed records although not all survived the war. The British of course also kept detailed records - compiled at ARP Warden and borough/local govt level before being assembled into national figures and - while they might have been misunderstood when aggregated and used in more recent time - the original records are still there for any one who wish to undertake study and analysis of them, and no doubt some folk do exactly that.

[Ozexpatriate]

The combined civilian population losses during the war years in countries like the Soviet Union (~13M), China (~15M?), Poland (>5M), Dutch East Indies (~4M), India (~2M) and French Indochina (1.5M), outnumbered the total of ALL other casualties (military and civilian) in the second world war.

And please let's not forger Germany - they may have been the enemy but they were bombed pretty intensively too.

The best thing that can be said about the second world war is that it ended - the Axis were defeated and the Red Army proceeded no further.

 

The value of strategic bombing in determining the outcome has never been objectively established. More than 60,500 Britons and perhaps as many as 1.1M German and Japanese civilians were killed by bombing in the second world war. The Nixon-ordered bombing of Cambodia dropped more total ordinance than the USAAF in the entirety of the second world war and killed 70,000 people, but did not change the outcome.

 

The prevailing wisdom in the west is that atomic bombing (August 6 and 9) motivated the Japanese to surrender and ended the Pacific war, but I remain unconvinced. The Soviets declared war on the Empire of Japan at midnight on August 8 and invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo on August 9, advancing rapidly toward Japanese held Korea.

 

The Emperor's recording accepting the Potsdam Declaration was broadcast on August 15 and Japan surrendered unconditionally to the United States on September 2. Many suspect the very real Soviet threat made surrendering to the US look much more attractive. The presence of the Soviets made questions on whether the Americans had the stomach for an invasion of the home islands moot.

 

Even though 38th parallel was identified at Potsdam as the boundary of US / Soviet occupation zones, the US landed troops at Incheon on September 8, just to make sure.