nazi info real or fiction?

[Dozer_EAF19]

Originally Posted by Madfish

Your point being? What did you expect? One single country winning against the whole world?

The manhattan project, amongst some others, was a shame for the military as it was mainly aimed at the slaughter of civillians. Being German myself I'm glad that Hitler didn't invest too much in the research of atomic or chemical weapons, unlike the allieds. Can you imagine V1's being used to propel atomic or chemical weapons? I would rather not imagine that. These "weapons" are no weapons, they are tools of plain murder, like the concentration camps were.

Further no one said that the experimental planes performed extremely well. Some products did perform exeptionally well, especially tanks (king tiger etc.) and also a number of planes. The problem was, like you mentioned, production rate and at the later phase of the war also material quality as well as lack of soldiers skilled and fit enough to put them to use.

But then again, some weird experiments existed, some of these with low success. I don't think it'd be bad to include them in the game but I think the developers should not invest a lot of time into that. I guess it'd be better to have good modding tools so that the community can up with planes on it's own.

No, you are wrong. The atomic bomb was not aimed at killing civilians. The Manhattan project was aimed directly at ending the war in Europe. The bombs weren't to kill civilians just for for fun and vengeance, they were to slap Hitler into surrendering and ending the wider loss of life that he had sole responsibility for starting.

I've said it before, but it was not noticed. The bombs are not like the concentration camps. Bombing is a weapon of war, a tragic and terrible one, but with the purpose of crippling the enemy state until it can't fight. The purpose is not to kill civilians, but that is an unavoidable consequence of bombing the places where they live and work. The concentration camps were built with the purpose of killing civilians. Some were siphoned off and used as expendable labour, but only because the German economy was desperately short of - well, everything actually, including labour. They are very different things. Both involved the deaths of civilians. But it is the byproduct of bombing and the purpose of the camps. It is not the same.

[robtek]

No Dozer,

the bombing of civilians is a war crime!
It really doesn't matter is they are "collateral damage" or attacked directly.
In our perfect hindsight we know how militarily meaningless 95% of the bombing were.
What brought germany to the knees in the end, regarding to bombing, was the destruction of the refineries and transport ways.
I.e. the fighter production was at its peak at 44-45, the panzer production had its peak at 44.
The night bombing by the raf was a pure terror weapon as not the industrial concentrations but the city centers were targeted.
Dresden, i.e. is not different from hiroshima or nagasaki, except it took longer, was even less a military target and the longevity of damage.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by robtek

No Dozer,

the bombing of civilians is a war crime!
It really doesn't matter is they are "collateral damage" or attacked directly.
In our perfect hindsight we know how militarily meaningless 95% of the bombing were.
What brought germany to the knees in the end, regarding to bombing, was the destruction of the refineries and transport ways.
I.e. the fighter production was at its peak at 44-45, the panzer production had its peak at 44.
The night bombing by the raf was a pure terror weapon as not the industrial concentrations but the city centers were targeted.
Dresden, i.e. is not different from hiroshima or nagasaki, except it took longer, was even less a military target and the longevity of damage.

So...was Churchill a war criminal then?

[AndyJWest]

So...was Churchill a war criminal then?

If you take international law as it stood at the time, there might be a case to suggest this. Given Churchill's precipitate attempts to distance himself from the 'area bombing campaign' after the war, one might question whether he thought so himself.

The question is rather moot anyway. He's dead. Not much chance of bringing him to court. I can think of one or two more recent politicians that it might be worth looking at though...

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Splitter

So...was Churchill a war criminal then?

Churchill was under pressure from the Americans to shift the bombing effort away from cities and towards oil supplies and transport to assist the assault on Germany.

Churchill was also under pressure from Stalin to increase the area bombing of cities, presumably as a scorched earth policy meant a more pliable destroyed Germany post war for Stalin to control.

In the end Churchill went with Stalin wishes, not the Americans, though he later seems to have had second thoughts about appeasing Stalin.

According to Speer, postwar, if Churchill had listened to the Americans and prioritized oil supplies as a target the war may have finished 6 months early.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Churchill was under pressure from the Americans to shift the bombing effort away from cities and towards oil supplies and transport to assist the assault on Germany.

Churchill was also under pressure from Stalin to increase the area bombing of cities, presumably as a scorched earth policy meant a more pliable destroyed Germany post war for Stalin to control.

In the end Churchill went with Stalin wishes, not the Americans, though he later seems to have had second thoughts about appeasing Stalin.

According to Speer, postwar, if Churchill had listened to the Americans and prioritized oil supplies as a target the war may have finished 6 months early.

First, I hope no one took my post which you quoted as me thinking Churchill was a war criminal. I was asking the question to someone who had made a certain assertion.

Second, I didn't realize the Stalin connection, but it fits. I do know (my understanding at least) that the Germans bombed a British city first, apparently by mistake. The Brits of course did not know this so they bombed Berlin. In reply, Hitler vowed to wipe English cities off the map starting with London.

That Stalin would want to continue to bomb cities is not surprising. He had big post-war plans for Europe. Obviously.

This all leaves me thinking of where the turning point in the war in Europe might have been. Every contest has moments where momentum turns, sometimes several.

Splitter

[Novotny]

I'm reading through Barbarossa, by Alan Clark again. When I get to the right bit, I'll tell you when the turning point was. Somewhere near Stalingrad I should think.

[Xilon_x]

Loock this strange photo are U.F.O.?
are aliens?
are secret tecnology?
are laser?

[Sven]

Originally Posted by Dozer_EAF19

No, you are wrong. The atomic bomb was not aimed at killing civilians. The Manhattan project was aimed directly at ending the war in Europe. The bombs weren't to kill civilians just for for fun and vengeance, they were to slap Hitler into surrendering and ending the wider loss of life that he had sole responsibility for starting.

I've said it before, but it was not noticed. The bombs are not like the concentration camps. Bombing is a weapon of war, a tragic and terrible one, but with the purpose of crippling the enemy state until it can't fight. The purpose is not to kill civilians, but that is an unavoidable consequence of bombing the places where they live and work. The concentration camps were built with the purpose of killing civilians. Some were siphoned off and used as expendable labour, but only because the German economy was desperately short of - well, everything actually, including labour. They are very different things. Both involved the deaths of civilians. But it is the byproduct of bombing and the purpose of the camps. It is not the same.

they are both meant to get rid of a lot of people at concentrated places in a short time. Atomic bombs weren´t made to kill tanks or bridges, theyre meant for cities full of civilians why else would mankind invent such a weapon? We had weapons to destroy all the other except for whole cities in 1 blow, the A bomb was of course meant to do this, because it is useless against any other target, would you nuke a tank? or perhaps a key bridge? of course not. That would be a waste of the entire project and very expensive as well, and a regular bomb would do the job as well and with the same effect rendering the target either destoyed or heavily damaged, making it unfit to fullfill its task.

Now back on topic, I agree that they should not include these prototype fighters and bombers into the game, rather focus on historical planes ( and thats a very very lot of planes) and of course the most important, Overall Gameplay. Making it enjoyable not only the first week you play the game but also afterwards.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Sven

they are both meant to get rid of a lot of people at concentrated places in a short time.

Correct.

Atomic bombs weren´t made to kill tanks or bridges, theyre meant for cities full of civilians why else would mankind invent such a weapon?

Why are there nuclear warheads for artillery shells and torpedoes?