Elektronbombe

[FOKKERJ]

"I beg the Supreme Command not to use the new incendiaries, because of the reprisals that the enemy would take against our own cities."

I believe that "fear of retaliation" is definitely based on "humanitarian reasons".... just my funf fennig!

Cheers, Jay

[Chock]

Not so sure about that, humanitarianism is supposed to include everyone on the planet, fear of retaliation's benevolence kind of stops at your borders

Al

[ManfredT]

Originally Posted by Southside Bucky

A more realistic reason for the raid's cancellation was given by the Chancellor, Count von Hertling, who stated:

"I beg the Supreme Command not to use the new incendiaries, because of the reprisals that the enemy would take against our own cities."

Bucky

Bucky,

thanks for reply.We have no evidence that Reichskanzler Graf Hertling had stated that. Wether in the two volumes of his memoires, nor in the records of his son Rtm. Karl Graf von Hertling, such a statement is found. Have you manipulate the reminescence of Erich Ludendorff into direct speech of Count Hertling? The original German text of Ludendorff:

„Bei dem Ernst unserer Lage versprach sich die Oberste Heeresleitung von einem Bombenabwurf auf London und Paris nicht mehr die Wirkung, den Feind friedenswillig zu machen. Sie gab deshalb nicht mehr die Erlaubnis, eine besonders wirkungsvolle Brandbombe, die im August in erforderlichen Mengen fertig und für den Abwurf auf die beiden Hauptstädte bestimmt war, zu gebrauchen. Die zu erwartenden großen Zerstörungen hätten auf den Gesamtverlauf des Krieges keinen Einfluß mehr gehabt; Zerstörungen als Selbstzweck wurden nie geduldet. Auch Graf Hertling hatte die Oberste Heeresleitung gebeten, diese neuen Brandbomben im Hinblick auf die gegen unsere Städte zu erwartenden feindliche Gegenmaßregeln nicht zu gebrauchen. Maßgebend für jenen Entschluß bleiben jedoch meine auf der Kriegslage beruhenden Erwägungen.“


ManfredT

[Southside Bucky]

Hi again, Manfred.

My apologies for any confusion. It was indeed Ludendorff quoting von Hertling.

May I ask; Does he (v.H.) say anything at all on the subject in his own memoirs?

Regards.

Bucky

[ManfredT]

Bucky,

nothing found still yet. It's doubtfull that Hertling was informed, both men doesn't like each other. The hours before the Bogohls were airborne Ludendorff suffered from a nervous breakdown, humanity was asked for and he took a decision. His Ia Oberstleutnant Wetzell demised immediately. From the military point of view it was a failure not to burn the City of Paris and the City of London, politically it couldn't get much worser for Germany as it was - the Entente was not interested in peace talks. The burning of the two capitals would have been a shock, and the perspective that the Germans could strike the next towns would have had an effect on peace talks. But therefore nerves were needed. (Something to think about: Germany before war was growing, with excellent technologies and a prosperous economy. The last thing Germany needed in this phase was war, which the business rivals knew.)

ManfredT

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by FOKKERJ

"I beg the Supreme Command not to use the new incendiaries, because of the reprisals that the enemy would take against our own cities."

I believe that "fear of retaliation" is definitely based on "humanitarian reasons".... just my funf fennig!

Cheers, Jay

So if you want to murder someone--but are afraid to attempt it in case that person (who has a big gun) kill's you instead--you are refraining from murderous acts because of your 'humanitarian' sensibilities!!

Well---now that is a funny feeling indeed!

Dave.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by ManfredT

Bucky,

nothing found still yet. It's doubtfull that Hertling was informed, both men doesn't like each other. The hours before the Bogohls were airborne Ludendorff suffered from a nervous breakdown, humanity was asked for and he took a decision. His Ia Oberstleutnant Wetzell demised immediately. From the military view of point it was a failure not to burn the City of Paris and the City of London, politically it couldn't get much worser for Germany as it was - the Entente was not interested in peace talks. The burning of the two capitals would have been a shock, and the perspective that the Germans could strike the next towns would have had an effect on peace talks. But therefore nerves were needed. (Something to think about: Germany before war was growing, with excellent technologies and a prosperous economy. The last thing Germany needed in this phase was war, which the business rivals knew.)

ManfredT

Hi Manfred,

By "business rivals" I assume you are referring to the 'Allies'. I rather feel that the war was more about freedom than 'big business'

Germany of course had a "prosperous economy" -- one wonders therefore why it needed to embark on a war of aggression with it's neighbours.

The truth of September-----Ludendorffs complete lack of direction or strategic planning with the spring offensives--Germany's allies disenchanted and failing one by one-
"We could not answer every cry for help...." Ludendorff speaking---according to his 'memories'
The Allies (Britain and Dominion troops in ascendance) counter attacking without let-up-
"within the last four weeks we have captured 77,000 prisoners with nearly six hundred guns. There has never been such a victory in the annals of Britain, and it's effects are not yet apparent. The German prisoners now being captured will not obey their officers...." 'Douglas Haig-The Educated Soldier--1963'

The truth about September is a defeated Germany--twisting and turning on the rack of that defeat---BUT still hoping to gain something by prevaricating over peace negotiations with Wilson and his 'fourteen points' wherein Germany sought (vainly) to drive a wedge still between the Allies---and I would maintain therein lie's the real reason for not bombing Paris---That and the logistical difficulties involved----and the likely cost in execution.

Dave.

[bristol scout]

To continue with what was really happening in September, as opposed to fantastical flights of superbombing fancy---

2nd. Sept.--British fourth army attacks Drocourt-queant line (Wotan to the Germans) Canadian corps total success at EVERY POINT---in one day forcing a rescinding of Ludendorffs policy of not retiring---over the next eight days four German armies retire----surrendering to the allies ALL the territory won in the great March offensive.

12.Sept. rd. Army captures Havrincourt (56th. Division) Not forgetting the American attack at St.MIhiel--15,000prisoners and 460 guns---a 'good bag' in the words of colonel Repington.

The 'old discipline' of the German soldier was fading fast in early Sept.--The fourth army historian say's "German officers are now saying frankly that their men will not face Australians"

And --lest we forget this was a 'World War' -
19th. Sept. saw General Allenby open the battle of Megiddo--in Palestine---and in six day's had 45,000 prisoners and 265 guns and the Turks in full flight and begging for more German aid---as were all her allies. Aid that Germany--on the rack in France, could not supply----It has been very well said indeed that Turkey and the rest were defeated in France!

I think this is what September 1918 was really like----and I re-iterate---humanitarian reasons were not the cause of cancelled bombing missions!.
As for " systematic firestorms"--well, we know they are (were) not so easily organised as it may seem---discounting Japans experiences how many have there ever been?---the answer is very small is'nt it.
Dave.

[Southside Bucky]

Originally Posted by ManfredT

...It's doubtfull that Hertling was informed, both men doesn't like each other...

Maybe they didn't like each other, but after quoting von Hertling on his 'fear of reprisals' statement, Ludendorff added:

"The state of the war led me to concur with that decision."

Originally Posted by ManfredT

...From the military view of point it was a failure not to burn the City of Paris and the City of London, politically it couldn't get much worser for Germany as it was...

You really think so? My own view is that Germany's situation would have
become much, much worse:

Germany was contending with wholesale retreat, surrender, desertion and
mutinies on the western front. Civil unrest and signs of pending revolution in the homeland, made worse by the ever increasing frequency and ferocity of bombing raids by the Independent Force.

Also, I think the German high command knew that the British had recently developed their own version of the Elektron bomb (the 'Baby' incendiary), which probably had a big influence on their decision to abandon the 'Fire Plan'.

IMO, that decision was the only viable one Germany could've made.

Regards.

Bucky

[ManfredT]

Hallo Dave,

don't speak of "bombing Paris". See it the way the Allies have done with Germany in 1944/45, without any scruple: burning the heart of the cities, the precious culture. (They must have read the documents in front of me: the 'Feuersturm' works.)

I'm always amused if you are speaking about the huns, and to be tempted to illustrate your view with the posters and illustrations of the Entente, incitement of the people.

ManfredT

PS Do you remember of 22th June 1916? During a bomb raid against the German City of Karlsruhe 117 people were killed, among them 85 children in a circus tent.