The Axis Powers

[Alan Eardley]

Axis Powers

Apart from political and idealogical alignments and differences, it is interesting to look at the way the Axis Powers (particularly Germany and Japan) traded and colloborated in material terms in WW2, and the extent to which this concerned the Allies.

An example of this is the Commando raid on Bordeaux in December 1942 which was depicted in the book and film 'Cockleshell Heroes'. The 80 mile incursion up the Gironde under the noses of the Germans and Vichy French defences by Royal Marine canoeists working for Combined Operations HQ* to damage and sink five or six cargo ships is the stuff of legend. What is often not stressed is that the ships were known to be running the Atlantic Blockade regularly. They traded natural resources (particularly rubber) from the Japanese occupied Pacific for German and Italian arms and production equipment. Without this rubber the Axis Powers' ability to prosecute the war in the Mediterranean and to mount air defence of German occupied Europe would be reduced.

Whether the raid was successful is a matter for debate. Certainly 80% of the objective targets were destroyed, their strategic cargoes lost and the dock at Bordeaux rendered unusable for a time. (3 men sank 6 enemy ships). Those were probably viable objectives for what were among the darkest times in WW2 (Operation Torch was not going well, el-Alamein had yet to be fought and the 'Battle of the Atlantic' was in the balance). I suspect the high losses of active personnel incurred in the raid itself (mainly due to natural forces rather than enemy action) would not have been tolerated later in the war, but saddest of all was the killing of two of the raiding party who were captured by the Nazis under Hitler's highly illegal order to execute 'commando saboteurs' **. The same might apply to the RAF attacks on the Ruhr dams. The bravery of the participants was an inspiration to nations and a light of hope in the darkness of possible defeat.

* Perhaps it is vaguely relevant to this forum to observe that among the COHQ staff who planned the raid was Douglas Fairbanks, the Hollywood actor.

** I've just recalled that it emerged at the Hamburg trials of 1948 that one of the Nazi commanders who ordered the executions also claimed that they were ordered as a reprisal for supposed Russian breaches of the Hague Regulations (the so-called Kharkov fake executions) of Wehrmacht troops on the Eastern Front.

 

[Zemke Fan]

Great information, gang...

...I've learned a lot from these posts. While I'm a student of the warfare, the underlying politics is not as familiar to me as it ought to be. I know more now.

 

[geo]

I've read somewhere that Adolf was working as a courier boy and a spy for soldiers' soviets (communist Revolutionary committees) after WW1, before findig the local nazi party and joining.

The USSR was not for racial equality, as shown by their persecution of the Caucasian peoples, Crimean Tartars, millions of Ukrainians who were starved to death in the 30's, and countless others peoples who were deported to Siberia and became virtually extinct.

Also, the USSR was a workers' and peasants' state. I think that's obvious. Nazi Germany was National Socialist, and the Nazi party was called the NSDAP, or the German workers' national socialist party. It was a revolutionary party, and their cause was described as a Revolution. The ruling classes in both Germany and the USSR came from worker and peasant backgrounds, which wouldn't normally have risen to power in a democratic country at the time.

 

[Lincsong]

Interesting perspective Geo

Although we're neighbors we still have different perspectives.

 

[PADDY]

I'm learning quite a few new things here..

I'm pretty up to speed on the politics and ideology of the era, but there are some little gems coming through that I wasn't aware of, which is what the Lounge should be all about!! Some of you gents are quite the academic when it comes to this too and have put a lot of work and effort into writing things up!

 

[Alan Eardley]

Axis collaborations

Some other examples of German/Italian/Japanese collaboration in WW2 are springing to mind.

Obviously German and Italian (and Vichy French) ground troops opposed American and British/Empire troops in the North Africa and Mediterranean campaigns.

The Italian Airforce and the Luftwaffe of course operated together in both theatres (particularly Malta and Greece/Crete). There were even Italian units in the Battle of Britain...

How about German/Italian design collaboration between Mitsubishi and Kurt Tank's design office at FW?

 

[nightandthecity]

I've read somewhere that Adolf was working as a courier boy and a spy for soldiers' soviets (communist Revolutionary committees) after WW1, before findig the local nazi party and joining..

Hitler?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s days as a courier were on the western front in the German army.

Hitler became a spy for the German Army, not for the communists! He was a young soldier in Munich in 1919 at the time of the socialist rising. He was already a committed anti-socialist and totally opposed to the rising, and he informed on many of his fellow soldiers who had taken part. He was then recruited as a political education lecturer and spy by the Bavarian Military.

That is how he came into contact with the infant Nazi party. The Army were worried that it might be another ?¢‚Ǩ?ìred?¢‚Ǩ? organization because of its name and sent Adolf along to report on them. He found that it was actually a right-wing party that hoped to attract workers away from socialism to a programme of German nationalism, anti-socialism, anti-communism, and anti-Semitism. This matched his own views and he soon ousted the founder (Anton Drexler) as leader ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú all the while as a paid agent of the Army, who helped fund the party and supplied many new recruits.

The USSR was not for racial equality, as shown by their persecution of the Caucasian peoples, Crimean Tartars, millions of Ukrainians who were starved to death in the 30's, and countless others peoples who were deported to Siberia and became virtually extinct..

I agree with you here, the Communist state was never internationalist or anti-racist in practice, whatever the theory. We are back where I started an earlier post: Stalinist treble-think?¢‚Ǩ¬¶saying one thing, doing something else, thinking something else altogther?¢‚Ǩ¬¶?¢‚Ǩ¬¶

Also, the USSR was a workers' and peasants' state. I think that's obvious. Nazi Germany was National Socialist, and the Nazi party was called the NSDAP, or the German workers' national socialist party. It was a revolutionary party, and their cause was described as a Revolution. .

The world is full of political parties with misleading names. For example most of the worlds ?¢‚Ǩ?ìLiberal?¢‚Ǩ? parties are actually conservative parties, in most cases reflecting a long-term rightward evolution.

Most of the fascist parties had misleading names, but in their case it was a deliberate, conscious attempt to hijack the appeal of socialism. They realized that simple conservatism was not enough to stop the rising socialist tide, which threatened to engulf most of Europe. What were needed were radical parties of the right that could match the appeal of socialism, and names were the first line of attack.

For example, in Italy groups of insurrectionaries had often been called ?¢‚Ǩ?ìfasci?¢‚Ǩ?, so Mussolini took this name in an attempt to link his movement with the Italian revolutionary tradition (that the fasces was also the Roman symbol of authority was a useful coincidence).

In every country the name of the local fascist party directly reflected the main local left-wing threat. Thus in Spain and Portugal, where Anarcho-Syndicalism was the main threat, fascists called themselves ?¢‚Ǩ?ìNational Syndicalists?¢‚Ǩ?. Thus aristocratic Russian exiles called their fascist movement ?¢‚Ǩ?ìNational Bolshevism?¢‚Ǩ?. And in Germany, where the Social Democrats were the main leftist party, fascists became ?¢‚Ǩ?ìNational Socialists?¢‚Ǩ?.

Incidentally, this playing with names (and thus deliberately confusing political discourse) is still very much a feature of fascist and ?¢‚Ǩ?ìpost-fascist?¢‚Ǩ? parties. In the 1970s when the left-wing threat seemed to come from a generalized anti-authoritarianism rather than the old socialist parties, fascist type movements tended to drop ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsocialism?¢‚Ǩ? and begin using the words ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdemocratic?¢‚Ǩ? and ?¢‚Ǩ?ìfreedom?¢‚Ǩ? an awful lot. For example, in the UK one of the main neo-Nazi groups was called the National Democratic Freedom party. In Australia one neo-Nazi organization actually calls itself the Australian Civil Liberties Union. There are numerous similar examples. But I digress into the modern world. Lets keep it period.

The Nazi party was NOT a socialist party in the normal meaning of the term, as I have already explained at length. However, they did proclaim a critique of certain aspects of modern industrial capitalism, especially in the early days. They claimed to defend small business against big business for example, but this was never really followed through in practice. They also drew a distinction between ?¢‚Ǩ?ìproductive?¢‚Ǩ? entrepreneurial capitalism (big and small business) as against ?¢‚Ǩ?ìparasitic?¢‚Ǩ? finance capital (banks etc). In all this they reflected the views of their core base, the lower middle class: officials, managers, small businessmen, commercial farmers etc.

It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s important to realize that as all fascist parties claimed to represent ?¢‚Ǩ?ìthe nation?¢‚Ǩ? rather than a sectional interest, they had to appeal to every sectional interest. Thus whilst the Nazis were speaking out for the small businessman and the market farmer against big business and the banks they were circulating a secret document (The Road to Resurgence ) among the highest levels of business and finance promising not to interfere with their activities, and the Nazis received generous funding from big business throughout. Indeed, it was at the bidding of a group of prominent industrialists that Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Hitler came to view big business leaders as a natural elite: "capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead."

?¢‚Ǩ?ìRevolution?¢‚Ǩ? is not the sole preserve of the left or of socialists, and the majority of revolutions in the last few hundred years have been liberal/democratic revolutions led by respectable middle-class people, like the British revolution (1641-1688), the American revolution, the French revolution etc. The Nazis promised a right-wing nationalist revolution, and in their own terms delivered one.

In the inter-war years workers and peasants were the clear majority of the population. Thus the only societies which could claim to be ?¢‚Ǩ?ìworkers and peasants states?¢‚Ǩ? were the democracies ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú which were admittedly very few at the time. Britain, for example, did not have universal adult suffrage until I928.

Russia claimed to be a workers/peasants state but for all the reasons I cited in an earlier post that claim is absurd. And Nazi Germany never claimed to be any such thing. It was central to the its ideology that the state represented the entire nation not any particular class, and was ruled by an elite.

The ruling classes in both Germany and the USSR came from worker and peasant backgrounds, which wouldn't normally have risen to power in a democratic country at the time.

The leaders of both the Bolshevik party and the Nazi party were mostly men of the middle-class, not workers or peasants. Here are the main Nazis:

Hitler, son of a senior customs official. Soldier. Lived first off his fathers generous pension, then off Army Intelligence funds, then Nazi party funds.

Feder, businessman, owner of his own construction company, son of a government official.

Eckart, medical student and writer.


Roehm, Army officer (Major, not Captain as often stated).

Goering, army officer, son of an army officer, married to a Baroness.

Hess, army officer and student, son of a wealthy merchant.

Ludendorf, a (very) senior staff officer in the German Army and a leading military figure of WW1.

Goebells, writer and academic.

Himmler, army officer, commercial farmer, son of a schoolmaster.

Heydrich, son of an actress, Naval intelligence officer.

Speer, architect and son of an architect.

Eichmann, son of a Mine Owner and businessman. Engineering student, oil salesman.

And the leading Bolsheviks:
Lenin. Lawyer, son of a school inspector

Zinoviev. Farmer?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s son and clerk.

Lunacharsky. Student, son of a local government official

Stalin. Son of a shoemaker! Almost an actual worker, unfortunately he became a theology student, private tutor to middle class families, and a clerk.

Kamenev. Son of a railway worker, but became a lawyer.

Litvinov. Son of a wealthy banker.

Antonov-Ovseenko. Son of a military officer, educated at the Voronezh Military School and the Nikolaevsk Army Engineering College.

Trotsky. Rich farmers son. Student, writer and intellectual

Kollontai. Daughter of a Russian general, wife of an engineer. Writer, charity worker

Dzerzhinsky, the son of a Polish landowner

The middle-class nature of both groups is self-evident, but there are some significant differences, notably the preponderance of Military officers in the Nazi top brass, and the greater number of intellectuals in the Bolsheviks leadership.

You seem to be suggesting that both Russia and Germany increased social mobility and were worker states in that sense. I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t see that makes them any more worker states than the USA, but the social mobility thing has some truth in it as regards Russia.

In Russia the communists did abolish the old elite ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú the monarchy, aristocracy, and the big business class. And party membership provided a freemasonry by which the ambitious worker or peasant could rise in the world. Netherthless, the party was always dominated by the professional, managerial and official classes. It is reckoned to have been at its most ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdemocratic?¢‚Ǩ? in the Gorbachev era when (if I remember rightly) some 44% of members were from working class backgrounds, but of course, that means that 56% still came from the professional/managerial minority. It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not for nothing that the USSR has often been called a technocracy.

I confess I have no great knowledge regarding social mobility in Nazi Germany. I believe the majority view is that it increased, but only in line with trends already established by Weimar; that much ?¢‚Ǩ?ìmobility?¢‚Ǩ? was horizontal rather than vertical e.g. peasants becoming factory workers rather than becoming rich; and the main beneficiaries were the middle-class rather than workers or peasants. Nazi party membership certainly provided a freemasonry by which the ambitious could rise in the world, but its membership remained heavily middle-class throughout.


Incidentally ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú to finish where we began. Hitler took over the Nazi party as a paid agent of the German Army. It is also highly likely (it has never been proved, but the prima facie case is strong) that Stalin was a spy for the Tsarist secret police in the Bolshevik party. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve always thought there was a nice symmetry in that. And multiple layers of irony?¢‚Ǩ¬¶?¢‚Ǩ¬¶...

 

[Salv]

I'm pretty up to speed on the politics and ideology of the era, but there are some little gems coming through that I wasn't aware of, which is what the Lounge should be all about!! Some of you gents are quite the academic when it comes to this too and have put a lot of work and effort into writing things up!

Hear hear! That's some excellent research and effort put in by nightandthecity - I'd been psyching myself up to research the history of Naziism and Soviet Communism so that I could try to carry on the discussion, but there's nothing I could possibly add to nightandthecitys contributions.

Going slightly off-topic and back to the Spanish Civil War discussion - I asked if there were any books published that dealt with the Republican exiles and I came across Only For Three Months by Adrian Bell - the story of the 4000 Basque children evacuated to England during the war. I ordered a copy direct from the publisher and he explained that he is down to the last few copies and is having the book revised and expanded. The new version will be available in about 6 months time, but I bought a copy anyway.

 

[geo]

Hitler became a spy for the German Army, not for the communists! He was a young soldier in Munich in 1919 at the time of the socialist rising. He was already a committed anti-socialist and totally opposed to the rising, and he informed on many of his fellow soldiers who had taken part. He was then recruited as a political education lecturer and spy by the Bavarian Military.

Yes, that's right. He was an undercover agent, informing the Bavarian government on communist activities among the soldiers. But I think that as part of his cover he carried dispatches for the Reds. I also read that Himmler had a file on Hitler, which he intended to use to justify a future coup d'etat, and the information that Hitler used to be a courier for the Reds was in that file. It could also be that it was all made up by Himmler.

 

[geo]

Russia claimed to be a workers/peasants state but for all the reasons I cited in an earlier post that claim is absurd. And Nazi Germany never claimed to be any such thing. It was central to the its ideology that the state represented the entire nation not any particular class, and was ruled by an elite.

Now, on this. The USSR was a workers' and peasant's state. The rulers came from classes that had to work to make a living. Remember, this is 1917, and the ruling classes are hereditary and filthy rich: aristocracy, landowners, imperial family, all living in gold-plated palaces. A lawyer may seem like someone important today, but in 1917 he could not dream of taking the place of the Czar. When the USSR was established, it threw the aristocracy and rich professionals out of their houses, and gave the houses to workers and peasants. It also gave them a chance of raising in society by allowing them to go to universities, while many of the aristocracy had to go into exile or become farmers to make a living.

Nazi Germany claimed to be a workers' and peasants' state, as the name Nazi implies (German workers' national socialist party). In their propaganda, they stated that the workers and peasants were pillars of the society, and even the Reichsmark banknotes pictured workers in factories and peasants in the field.

 

[Robert Conway]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Vladimir Berkov]The Condor Legion was a Luftwaffe unit so far as I can remember, sent by the Germans to Spain in the 30s as sort of a testbed for their aircraft, crews and tactics.  The Italians and Russians also sent planes and crews for the same purpose.  The Germans and Italians tested out some of the bombing tactics against civilian cities that became such a hallmark of WW2.
[/QUOTE]

Actually the systematic carpet bombing of civilian targets, as a means to defeat an enemy, was the domain of Arthur 'Bomber" Harris of the British RAF. His thinking was that if you kill enough civilians i.e. the work force, or destroy enough of their housing you will bring about an economic collapse, thus defeating the enemy.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/air_marshall_arthur_harris.htm

The Nazis committed a very long list of crimes, but in this case the Luftwaffe really didn't have the means to execute operations like the RAF or USAF, because they lacked large capacity, four engined bombers like the Boeing B-17 or British Lancaster. Instead they employed what could be called tactical bombers (JU88, He-111), smaller fast twin engines machines with smaller payloads, that were designed to hit strategic targets such as command centers or support the breakthrough of ground troops through enemy lines. The Luftwaffe was designed to work in close coordination with the ground-forces, as part of the Blitzkrieg tactic. Their late war attempt at a heavy bomber, the Heinkel 177 "Greif" was a total failure and only a few were built.

Robert Conway

 

[Robert Conway]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Vladimir Berkov]The Condor Legion was a Luftwaffe unit so far as I can remember, sent by the Germans to Spain in the 30s as sort of a testbed for their aircraft, crews and tactics.  The Italians and Russians also sent planes and crews for the same purpose.  The Germans and Italians tested out some of the bombing tactics against civilian cities that became such a hallmark of WW2.
[/QUOTE]

Actually the systematic carpet bombing of civilian targets, as a means to defeat an enemy, was the domain of Arthur 'Bomber" Harris of the British RAF. His thinking was that if you kill enough civilians i.e. the work force, or destroy enough of their housing you will bring about an economic collapse, thus defeating the enemy. He started to develop this theory during the 1930's and tested it in of all places, in Iraq.

There was controversy among the Allies, regarding his tactics. This criticism culminated with the razing of Nurmberg and the 1945 bombing of Dresden and he was somewhat shunned after the war.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/air_marshall_arthur_harris.htm

The Nazis committed a very long list of crimes, but in this case the Luftwaffe really didn't have the means to execute operations like the RAF or USAF, because they lacked large capacity, four engined bombers like the Boeing B-17 or British Lancaster. Instead they employed what could be called tactical bombers (JU88, He-111), smaller fast twin engines machines with smaller payloads, that were designed to hit strategic targets such as command centers or support the breakthrough of ground troops through enemy lines. The Luftwaffe was designed to work in close coordination with the ground-forces, as part of the Blitzkrieg tactic. Their late war attempt at a heavy bomber, the Heinkel 177 "Greif" was a total failure and only a few were built.

Robert Conway

 

[geo]

Actually the systematic carpet bombing of civilian targets, as a means to defeat an enemy, was the domain of Arthur 'Bomber" Harris of the British RAF. His thinking was that if you kill enough civilians i.e. the work force, or destroy enough of their housing you will bring about an economic collapse, thus defeating the enemy. He started to develop this theory during the 1930's and tested it in of all places, in Iraq.

The idea occured to him in the 30's, but the first to put it into practice was the Condor Legion in Spain, over Guernica. Guernica was the first time that a city was bombed for no other reason than to terrorize the population. It was away from the front lines, and not a military objective. The bombing was a practice run for the Condor Legion, and the German Luftwaffe put this experience into work in WW2, over Rotterdam, and later London. The Allies retaliated by bombing the German and later Japanese cities.

 

[Robert Conway]

The idea occured to him in the 30's, but the first to put it into practice was the Condor Legion in Spain, over Guernica. Guernica was the first time that a city was bombed for no other reason than to terrorize the population. It was away from the front lines, and not a military objective.

Yes and no. If you don't count the German Zeppelin terror raids of WWI or what Harris did in India and the Middle East and the Japanese did during their invasion of China, startin in thev early 1930s. But Guernica probably was the first event on that scale.

The bombing was a practice run for the Condor Legion, and the German Luftwaffe put this experience into work in WW2, over Rotterdam, and later London. The Allies retaliated by bombing the German and later Japanese cities.

Yes, the Germans bombed Rotterdamn etc. but my point is that this was not really part of their main strategy, as it was with the British. The British bombed Berlin, before the Blitz and it was that raid, which infuriated Hitler to the point that he commanded the Luftwaffe to stop it's strategic raids on British radar stations, airfields and airplane factories and instead concentrate on bombing London (which resulted in the Blitz).

The Germans were into Blitzkrieg, not sustained strategic carpet bombing, that was intended to bring about collapse. The Luftwaffe was meant to support the breakthrough of groundtroops and eliminate the enemy airforce, which could threaten the Wehrmacht. It was not designed to bring about victory, by it's own actions.

I'm not trying to whitewash the Germans, but the Luftwaffe was incapable of carrying out a systematic carpetbombing campaing, because they simply did not have the kind of planes necessary to do so. The JU88, He-111 or Do-17 did not have the bomb capacity, range or very heavy defensive armament to pull off operations, like were were able to do with planes like the B-17/B-29 or Lancaster/Sterling. This is one of the reason why the Blitz was a failure.

Robert Conway

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Nightandthecity: Excellent as always. I recall trying to have this argument in the Observation Bar once, with not enough time to spend formulating such a wonderful response.

I was about to post a one word reply to a previous message. Simply: Guernica. Geo got in before me.

bk

 

[jake431]

Yes, the Germans bombed Rotterdamn etc. but my point is that this was not really part of their main strategy, as it was with the British. The British bombed Berlin, before the Blitz and it was that raid, which infuriated Hitler to the point that he commanded the Luftwaffe to stop it's strategic raids on British radar stations, airfields and airplane factories and instead concentrate on bombing London (which resulted in the Blitz).

The Germans were into Blitzkrieg, not sustained strategic carpet bombing, that was intended to bring about collapse. The Luftwaffe was meant to support the breakthrough of groundtroops and eliminate the enemy airforce, which could threaten the Wehrmacht. It was not designed to bring about victory, by it's own actions.

I'm not trying to whitewash the Germans, but the Luftwaffe was incapable of carrying out a systematic carpetbombing campaing, because they simply did not have the kind of planes necessary to do so. The JU88, He-111 or Do-17 did not have the bomb capacity, range or very heavy defensive armament to pull off operations, like were were able to do with planes like the B-17/B-29 or Lancaster/Sterling. This is one of the reason why the Blitz was a failure.

Robert Conway

Guernica is widely credited as the first bombing in warfare (ie, "terror bombing" or "area bombing"). It needs not be part of a systematic strategy to have been so. It provided the British (not that they needed it) an incident they could point to, even before the bombing of London began, as a reason to bomb German cities as legitimate miltary targets - after all, they were doing no worse than their hated enemy.

-Jake

 

[geo]

Yes, the Germans bombed Rotterdamn etc. but my point is that this was not really part of their main strategy, as it was with the British.

I think that "total war" is a German conception of war. Like you said, they bombed London as early as WW1, and they also invented gas and flamethrowers, weapons that correspond with their idea of war.

 

[Alan Eardley]

'Total Destruction' Bombing

WW1 bombing attacks can hardly qualify as 'carpet bombing' or 'total detruction' bombing. A Zeppelin the size of an ocean liner only carried a few hundred pounds of bombs and they were almost inveriable lone raiders.

Guernica was certainly an attempt at the 'total destruction' bombing of a village. Let us also not forget that the Italians destroyed several Ethiopian villages with aerial bombing in the middle 30s.

 

[Robert Conway]

I think that "total war" is a German conception of war. Like you said, they bombed London as early as WW1, and they also invented gas and flamethrowers, weapons that correspond with their idea of war.

You really should read up a little more before making statements like that.

The term 'total war' is lifted from a speech that J. Goebbles delivered at the Sportpalast, after the German defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

The war was turning against the Germans and they had to implement total mobilization of all economic and labour resources. The Nazi party was telling the population that very difficult times were ahead and that they were in a fight for survival with the Soviets. If you have any idea what was happening on the Eastern front at this point in time, you would know what that meant. The world was witnessing a gigantic clash between the two most evil totalitarian regimes history has ever known, and warfare on that front was conducted by both sides with the utmost brutality. That's what he meant by the use of that term. Up until this point the Nazi party had made sure that the production of civilian goods wasn't severely impacted by the war effort, because the party was afraid that the public would turn on them.

But frankly it sounds like you are implying that the Germans have some sort of genetic or cultural inclination to extreme violence during wartime.
Do you hold any other cultures or races to similar stereo types?

I hate to break it to you, but chemical and biological warfare are not the sole invention of the Germans or confined to either World War. The Greeks and Romans used a napalm like substance as far back as 2000 years ago and , through out history it has been common practice to catapult infected cadavers in to besieged cities or poison their water supplies. The Romans would sow salt in to farmland, to make it unusable and rulers like Vladimeer impaled entire captured armies alive, as a warning to others. If you knew what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese during WWII you would probably be left in disbelief.

The entire human race is capable of extreme brutality. The veneer of civilized society is very, very thin.



Robert Conway

 

[Robert Conway]

[QUOTE=Alan Eardley]WW1 bombing attacks can hardly qualify as 'carpet bombing' or 'total detruction' bombing.  A Zeppelin the size of an ocean liner only carried a few hundred pounds of bombs and they were almost inveriable lone raiders.

You are correct. I was refering to them as a means of terror bombing. The Zeppelin attacks were of little strategic value, as was the Paris Gun. Both were intended as terror weapons.

Guernica was certainly an attempt at the 'total destruction' bombing of a village. Let us also not forget that the Italians destroyed several Ethiopian villages with aerial bombing in the middle 30s.[/QUOTE]

The Japanese bombed several cities in to rubble, all across China and the rest of Asia, when they invaded during the early 30's.



Robert Conway.