"Eunometic" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 28, 3:35 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

(Huge snip of top-notch research)
The bombing of Rotterdam. The targeting was deliberate, and was meant
to help the German troops fighting in the city. A few days later
leaflets
were dropped on Utrecht threatening them with the same fate unless they
surrendered.

One way to see what the Nazis were up to is to look at their own
propaganda.
I have a book that reprints a number of articles from their propaganda
magazine "Signal".
This isn't a translation; this is the English language version of the
magazine, so this is in their own words.
In the article "The soldier with the camera - unexampled documents from
the Propaganda Companies" there is a page and a quarter wide spread of
an aerial photograph of bomb devastated Rotterdam.
Under it is this text:
'The spectacle of 'total' war.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the lesson
by the destruction of the centre of the city.
P.K. Carstensen"

You do seem to go of half cocked a bit as if you were involved in the
propaganda of the times on one specific side.

No, it shows us what the Germans told the world about the raid.
Not that it was tactical support, but rather what it cost.

The idea was to scare opponents, given how feared air attack on
civilians was at the time. The non Germans noted what had happened
and how the Germans reported the attack.

Rotterdam was a
surrounded and besieged city, the Dutch Government had been issued an
ultimatum that Government buildings and the city center would be
bombed by a specific time and in a specific area unless they
conditionally surrendered.

So tell us the ultimatum date and how the Germans knew it
had been delivered and therefore how much time the Dutch
had to move people.

Try surrender negotiations were ongoing and General Student
realised the Dutch forces were waiting on permission from the
Dutch Government to surrender.

By the way, if the city centre is supposed to be bombed isn't
that a direct attack on the city, not a target in the city? Also the
Rotterdam raid left around 800 dead and 78,000 homeless, can it be
explained why so many people were living in things like government
buildings and the city centre? Is it not the case if the city is
surrounded there must be lots of civilians in places like the city
centre trying to avoid the fighting?

This should have given time for
evacuation of that part of the city.

Yes folks, the city is surrounded, besieged but it is the Dutch fault
the civilians were not moved from where the Luftwaffe is supposed
to have told the Dutch it was going to bomb. No thought of the
area having more than its usual population thanks to trapped and
displaced persons I gather. Tell us all, are the Dutch supposed
to move the civilians closer to the front line? Where are the safe
zones capable of taking say 20% or more of the city population?

So I gather it is the German civilian's fault for not evacuating their
cities as well when hit by USAAF and RAF attacks? None of
those cities were surrounded, plenty of chances to move.

Pre war Rotterdam had a population of around 600,000 so around
15% of the city's population was caught up in the raid. How about
explaining how long such an evacuation would take and where the
safe zones were?

This is quite different from
bombing a populated part of an unknown non specific city which doesn't
give a realistic chance to seek safety.

No, it is just someone trying to blame the Dutch for the bombing.
While excusing German bombings.

It didn't help that the
Dutch officers were prevaricating and considering their position at
leisure or that the the Dutch were operating on two time zones and the
Germans a third.

Try the garrison was waiting on permission to surrender, and
understand how communications were disrupted by the fighting.

Please provide the evidence of prevarication and leisure, as
opposed to not following German demands, which seems to be
the definition being applied.

In the end the deadline was extended but some
bombers were on their way and the abort flares were fired were not
seen by the first wave. The second wave turned back.

The recall signal was sent too late, the bombers had stopped
listening in order to concentrate on their bomb runs, and
despite flying at 2,300 feet they failed to see the signal rockets
and some 54 He111's unloaded. As noted the second wave did
see the signal flares.

The bombing was a botch up, notable also for its tragic deaths but
also with the speed a it was used to abolish Britain's US encourage
policy of not bombing cities within 48 hours.

Yes folks, you see the British decided to lift their policy against
attacking
targets in cities, they understood at the time some bombs would miss,
hence the restrictions to things like ships and targets well away from
major civilian populations, these restrictions were removed. The Germans
had never been bound by such rules, for example see the Ju52's shovelling
incendiary bombs out their cargo doors over Warsaw.

You see under the Eunometic rules we are supposed to decide when
the Luftwaffe has orders to attack a target in a city they attack the
targets, in other words count the bombs that hit, when the USAAF
or RAF do the same they are supposed to be attacking the city, count
the bombs that missed.

Simple really. Using the centre of Rotterdam is apparently not
targeting the city, well when it is the Luftwaffe anyway.

The exact reasons for the haste and reprehensible rashness aren't
understood as Richthofen's died a short time latter.

Richthofen? He was around for the war, his death was on 12 July
1945 from a brain tumour.

Not bothered to read the 18th Army directive to break the resistance
at Rotterdam "by any means", or OKW directive 11 demanding the
rapid crushing of Dutch resistance I gather.

Perhaps the fear
of a counter invasion.

Eunometic is writing fiction again.

The Dutch didn't have much of an air force but
they did have an anti-aircraft artillery system that caused so many
casualties that it may have cost the Luftwaffe the battle of Britain

Ah more fiction, the Dutch certainly made a mess of the Luftwaffe
transport fleet, with help from the Luftwaffe, some 125 Ju52's. The
airborne forces lost 4,000 men, including 1,200 prisoners sent to
England. The idea these losses, plus some combat aircraft types,
caused the loss of the Battle of Britain is a joke.

The problem with pointing the finger and "uping the ante" is that as
many fingers point back and the ante actually is upped; often on false
assumptions. Unfortunately cooler heads often do not prevail.

Go read the way the Germans presented the attack to the world, go
read about the various speeches about what the Nazis would do to
win the war.

I'm not sure you would be a cooler head?

Cooler head is being defined as agreeing with Eunometic fiction.

Just ask how many civilians were killed during the shock and awe
opperation. I've heard 4000 casualties?

Which shock and awe attacks, the 21st century attack on Iraq?

By the way I presume the next time the Dresden or Hamburg
attack is discussed I doubt we will see Eunometic bringing up
Luftwaffe attacks on places like Warsaw etc., amazingly only
when the Germans are doing something wrong there seems to
be this innate need to tell of other wrong doings. even if they
need to be embellished.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.