# Did the Luftwaffe Strafe Civilians in England in WW2?



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2009)

Is there any documentary evidence of the Luftwaffe actually strafing civilians in *Great Britain* during WW2? I have a feeling that this is like the WW1 "Red Cross" propaganda in that it didnt happen.

Anecdotal evidence of civilians being caught up in raids on airfields and other military targets is possible. But I just dont accept that the LW pilots would see someone riding a bicycle on a road in the middle of nowhere and then deciding to shoot him up.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 6, 2009)

Yes they did. My father-in-law was walking down a street with his school friends when as he described it a single engined aircraft flying at low level strafed the street they were walking on. An unknown gent pushed the boys against a building wall as bits of the road surface splattered around them. The aircraft traveled on and did not repeat. 

I have emailed him for the details, town, boys etc.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 6, 2009)

If you go through this thread.....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bournemouth-raid-1943-a-11371.html

...there are accounts of strafing on civilians from eyewitnesses.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 6, 2009)

Yes, there's plenty of evidence available, in fact I believe its been discussed over on TOCH a few times over the years too...


----------



## N4521U (Dec 6, 2009)

I have a friend who lived in Dresden as a boy in WWII, still can't understand why the British bombed them. Have I opened a can of beens???? Bill


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2009)

Why don't you accept it?

A fighter pilot kills people.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 6, 2009)

Few weekends ago I was talking to my grandmother who told me about being strafed by the Germans bombers while living in South end 

Fact enough for me


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 6, 2009)

If you were dropping bombs on civilians why would you give a damn about shooting them.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 6, 2009)

About the Dresden bombing, I think the residents of Coventry probably have your answer





QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER-BOARDING; ASK THE OCCUPANTS ON THE 155TH FLOOR OF THE WTC


----------



## gerrywac (Dec 6, 2009)

My mother was a child in a farming family in western germany during the war and was injured during a fighter bomber attack on the farm she worked on so it's not a one way thing.

Although it was an RAF sinle seat fighter she sain the Americans were the worst culprits and used to enjoy it


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 6, 2009)

It worked both ways , the Allied crew were no different


----------



## Njaco (Dec 6, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> It worked both ways , the Allied crew were no different



Exactly. War is NOT an exact science.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2009)

> *Although it was an RAF sinle seat fighter she sain the Americans were the worst culprits and used to enjoy it*


Used to enjoy it??? WTF is that sh!t all about??? I guess all us damn Yanks are bloodthirsty degenerates....

How the hell would u come up with this crap??? George Beurling, a Canadian in the RAF, enjoyed shooting Germans in their chutes and life rafts, whats ur point??


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 6, 2009)

As already mentioned, it worked both ways. Just like the bombing of cities, when Luftwaffe went from bombing the RAF airfields, to bombing London etc. in '40, RAF Bomber Command returned the favor...
In some cases I bet that the Allied played just as rough as the Axis...

But, saying that they'd "enjoy it" I think is to take it tad too far...how can you enjoy killing people, civilians if your're soldier??


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2009)

krieghund said:


> About the Dresden bombing, I think the residents of Coventry probably have your answer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Dresden bombing wasn't the smartest move on Allied part, in fact I think most terror bombing wasn't. Fact is both sides did it and pointing at the other wining: " you did it first" doesn't sound too mature to me.
The Dresden bombing by the way is in noway comparable to the Coventry bombing concerning scale and amount of innocent victims. There's only one thing in common of the two events and that is the futility of it all.

And I don't see what the water-boarding has to do with this discussion and seems to me a totally irrelevant political statement.


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 6, 2009)

My Dad was working his fields as a boy in southern Germany and was buzzed by a P-38 but not shot at.

I also think it's a stretch to say the Americans "enjoyed it". Sure there would have been zealots on all sides but let's not assign universal traits to nationalities.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2009)

Not sure the original question is phrased well. 
I doubt that it was official policy but luftwaffe fighters and bomber gunners did shoot up civilians.

But such is war.

To say that the Luftwaffe was above such things or that British civilians were lying boggles my brain.


----------



## A4K (Dec 6, 2009)

My grandmother was a WAAF and was almost killed when an FW 190 strafed the road she was on, walking to her base. She only survived by diving into a ditch at the last minute. - Why the last minute? In one of those great paradoxes of life, she was in a brand new dress she had saved up her rations for months for, and even when she saw the 190 bearing down on her, she was so angry that her new dress would be ruined the first time she wore it (the only escape was the large muddy ditch at the side of the road), that she almost stayed put in defiance! Common sense prevailed however, and she lived to tell the tale (not without bitterness though!)


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 6, 2009)

OK, how many soldiers on this picture?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2009)

U mean Soldiers, Sailors and Marines Kurfurst????

Whats ur point???


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 6, 2009)

My point is that you can't tell wheter they are civvies or a soliders, even if the person most far away on this picture is probably 150 meters away or less... how far away a fighter bomber pilot would be before starting an attack run? 500 m? 800? 1000?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> My point is that you can't tell wheter they are civvies or a soliders, even if the person most far away on this picture is probably 150 meters away or less... how far away a fighter bomber pilot would be before starting an attack run? 500 m? 800? 1000?



That is not a valid argument. Fact remains that the majority of people in a city are civilians. You don' attack crowds of people like that because you are going to kill more civilians than anything.

Besides the thread is not about city blocks of people, but small groups of people walking around out in a field or a small street. You can tell if they are civilian or not.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 6, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> My point is that you can't tell wheter they are civvies or a soliders, even if the person most far away on this picture is probably 150 meters away or less... how far away a fighter bomber pilot would be before starting an attack run? 500 m? 800? 1000?



So does this we will not see you crying war criminal about the P-51s staffing civilians at Dresden anymore?


----------



## dunmunro1 (Dec 6, 2009)

The key point is whether or not the Luftwaffe or any other airforce was authorized to attack civilian targets, and if so, then what forms of attack were permissible. The RAF was strictly forbidden to attack civilian targets, at least at the beginning of the war, but this policy seems to have been dropped around the time of the Fall of France. The Luftwaffe, OTOH, was seems to have been attacking civilian targets almost from the first day of the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2009)

Milosh said:


> So does this we will not see you crying war criminal about the P-51s staffing civilians at Dresden anymore?



Start your own thread about Dresden.

This thread is for the LW over England.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 6, 2009)

The Luftwaffe, well Kondor Legion, was bombing civilian targets in the Spanish Civil War; it's long since been established the bombing of Guernica was on purpose (claimed not to have happened or to have been an accident by the Germans at the time) as an experiment in the effect on civilian morale. And the German Imperial Air Service in WWI was de facto bombing civilians targets in the first World War, since it couldn't possibly achieve the accuracy to hit the nominal transport (railway station), industrial, etc. targets in the London area it was nominally going after. Of course this latter state of affairs typified Allied bombing in WWII, nominally against industrial or transport targets in populated areas, but accuracy made it de facto civilian bombing.

The issue of strafing per se could be considered separate as far as it related to what individual airmen or units did under their general orders, but it seems like the big picture issue was bombing policy, not strafing. Again for example the low atlitude fighter bomber raids by the Germans on smaller British cities ca. 1941 bombed town centers, did it really made a big difference whether or not they strafed too? (made a difference to a particular individual being strafed, I suppose, but not so much difference in general).

Allied or specifically USAAF fighters (which spent more time over Germany itself) routinely strafed targets like trains, road vehicles and river traffic where civilians were likely to be killed, yet the targets themselves had bona fide military value. And a lot of German 'strafing of civilians' would fall in the same category presumably. Another category for all combatants were areas closer to the ground combat front lines. Fighters demonstrably had a very hard time reliably telling their own soldiers from enemy frequently shooting up their own, so mistaking civilians for soldiers in such areas isn't a stretch at all; not the same as strafing city streets or farms far in the enemy's interior. There were many situations.

Joe


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2009)

All sides had thier share of strafing civilians, the Japanese shot up civilians well away from military targets on Hawaii, 7 December as well.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 6, 2009)

I think arguments like this are of little value. It was war. Ugly happens. It did then at it does now. It is way too easy for us to judge another, while we are completely seperated from the hell that those participants lived in daily.

Who worked in the factories that the allies targeted? Soldiers? Or civilian workers? The civilian that was straffed on a roadside, if they are heading to a factory, or delivering goods / supplies to a military base, are they not part of the war machine?

It is cold, it is brutal, and it is war. And it is why we try not to repeat those events.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 6, 2009)

gerrywac said:


> My mother was a child in a farming family in western germany during the war and was injured during a fighter bomber attack on the farm she worked on so it's not a one way thing.
> 
> Although it was an RAF sinle seat fighter she sain the Americans were the worst culprits and used to enjoy it



I don't think thats a fair statement , injured during an attack and strafing civilian's are 2 different things 

Not to mention the American pilots ' enjot it' comment


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 7, 2009)

What I am wondering is, a fighter or bomber that is strafing anything on the deck, is usually doing so when the pilots are assured of air supremacy.

In England, the LW didnt have air supremacy for too long, and I doubt the fighters were strafing anything that moves after 1940.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

I heard a WWII P-47 pilot in an interview say that if it was German he'd shoot at it and that was just the way it was. I know I'd feel the same way. Could be a factory worker on the way to make a rifle to kill an American, could be anyone that could in a small way inconvenience the war effort if he didn't turn up at work tomorrow. In a war for the survival of my country, that's all I'd need to know.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 7, 2009)

Milosh said:


> So does this we will not see you crying war criminal about the P-51s staffing civilians at Dresden anymore?




It never happened. Another WWII myth.


Well worth investing in Frederick Taylor's excellent book on Dresden.


----------



## N4521U (Dec 7, 2009)

Man-o-man, this thread sure has opened some deep feelings and opinions. Do you think it is worth this kind of confrontation? Every war or even radical activity can be condemned, or even supported by one side or the other. We can only sympathise with each side. That one or the other has such deep feelings that override common sense. I think the basic problem Is, everyone needs a bloody hobby!!!! Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 7, 2009)

With all the troop movements etc. going on throughout the war and civilians being caught up in them, I think that it's impossible not to wound and even kill civilians when strafing, as you see them in the heat of the battle, military targets....


----------



## Bug_racer (Dec 7, 2009)

I think its feasible to straff anything that moves in foreign lands . The enemy has to make it clear that the person/vehicle/building is not of military use eg hospital/school/medic/ambulance . Failure to do so makes it a military target . The real debate here is whether you should shoot down a parachutist who has just jumped from his plane !

Looking at it from a German pilots perspective back in 1940 , your pretty much a supreme military country at the time and you dont want enemy civilians pointing at you , you want to install fear into them . If rumours start abounding that civilians are targeted then they will spend less time looking at the plane and more time trying to hide from it !


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

Milosh said:


> So does this we will not see you crying war criminal about the P-51s staffing civilians at Dresden anymore?


Nothing done in the heat of battle should be considered a war crime IMO. Only those things done in cold blood with intent should be considered. Just my evil opinion that the high minded ideal formed in safety and comfort mean very little to a man who has to think fast while getting shot at. I don't know what happened at Dresden, but if they thought they were being shot at or were blasting an enemy target I'll give them (and the luftwaffe in the same circumstances) the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## claidemore (Dec 7, 2009)

People in high stress situations, (including fighter pilots), who set out on a task, have a need to do something towards the fullfillment of that task. If they are frustrated in their attemps they will sometimes take ineffectual actions that 'duplicate' their intended goal. It's a form of posturing, which anybody in combat can be affected by. 
A fighter pilot strafing civilian targets could be seen as posturing. He's frustrated because he hasn't found a military target, either through bad luck, or even being overly cautious, and eventually fires at something, anything, just to relieve the frustration. 
It's not right, but that's a partial explanation of why it happens. 
Or he could just be an evil sob.

By the way, N4521U, we have a hobby, and this is it.


----------



## Erich (Dec 7, 2009)

hey guys why not get back to syscxoms original thread question.

yes the LW strafed civilians and yes the P-51's of the US 8th Af strafed civilians around Dresden.Chemnitz during that terrible week of February 1945, it was an order; for some in denial then an unwritten order, all of Germany's populace was to feel the effects of Allied ground strafes........yes that is the way it was my own Familie in Germany stated this, it was all out war anything and everyone was a legitimate target.

now I have strayed off topic as well ........

back to our regular scheduled broadcasting


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 7, 2009)

Erich said:


> hey guys why not get back to syscxoms original thread question.
> 
> yes the LW strafed civilians and yes the P-51's of the US 8th Af strafed civilians around Dresden.Chemnitz during that terrible week of February 1945, it was an order; for some in denial then an unwritten order, all of Germany's populace was to feel the effects of Allied ground strafes........yes that is the way it was my own Familie in Germany stated this, it was all out war anything and everyone was a legitimate target.
> 
> ...



Erich, I think you'll find the myth of the US Air Force strafing civilians in the Dresden area was exactly that. A myth. There is no documentary confirmation whatsoever. In neither the American Army Air Force documentation or in German accounts originating at the time are daylight strafing attacks mentioned.

Frederick Taylor has an entire section of his book " Dresden, Tuesday 13th February 1945" Bloomsbury 2004 ISBN 07475 7084 1 devoted to this particular urban legend.

And as you say, now back to the original topic.


----------



## Erich (Dec 7, 2009)

sorry Paul but friends in Germany say elsewise with written documentation. I hold no ill feelings it was to break the whole moral of the German populace during operation Thunderclap the combined BC/US Heavy and support operations. I did quite a lengthy data resource file on the BC role they played and the puny LW Nachjagd effort that was put up large in part to superior handling of aerial data fooling and re-adressing the LW intel

in this case it does not really matter anyway it is many years ago and most in Germany remembering Dresden and Chemnitz and other towns blasted off the planet are long gone ........


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2009)

gerrywac said:


> Although it was an RAF sinle seat fighter she sain the Americans were the worst culprits and used to enjoy it



No offense Gerry but how could she tell. A guy blowing by, shooting, at 300mph, and she can tell the guy enjoyed it?

What did the guy do, roll back the canopy, chop the throttle and yell "Yeeeeehhh Haaaaaaaawwwww?"

I can believe they did it. But that someone on the receiving end could tell the mental state of the pilots? Nah, no chance.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 7, 2009)

Erich, if you have documentation to prove it I'm sure Mr Taylor would be interested to hear from you. Would you like me to contact him on your behalf? I'm more than happy to approach his publishers to establish communication with the author.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

claidemore said:


> People in high stress situations, (including fighter pilots), who set out on a task, have a need to do something towards the fullfillment of that task. If they are frustrated in their attemps they will sometimes take ineffectual actions that 'duplicate' their intended goal. It's a form of posturing, which anybody in combat can be affected by.
> A fighter pilot strafing civilian targets could be seen as posturing. He's frustrated because he hasn't found a military target, either through bad luck, or even being overly cautious, and eventually fires at something, anything, just to relieve the frustration.
> It's not right, but that's a partial explanation of why it happens.
> Or he could just be an evil sob.
> ...


That kind of psychology is just too foreign for people who've never felt adrenaline to understand. That's why I think only cold blooded actions should be counted as war crimes. Humans are imperfect creatures that are given to inhuman actions under extreme stress. A certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected when you employ them in combat. It's not the fault of the weapon that it overheats, nor is it the fault of the soldier who overheats under stresses that he was not psychologically built for. Taking revenge on a soldier for actions taken in the heat of battle makes no more sense than punishing an engine for seizing when drained of oil.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 7, 2009)

Milosh said:


> So does this we will not see you crying war criminal about the P-51s staffing civilians at Dresden anymore?



Who's crying and what does ? I can only see a notorious troll, who was permabanned twice from here already seeking to start a flamewar..

As for the fighter strafings in 1945, it did happened and this was an actual order as Erich stated. I also recall seeing a Chuck Yeager interview where he told about this. Back in the briefing room, his only comment to a pilot next to him was something like _'We'd better win this war, because we don't, they will hang us all as war criminals for this'. _

OTOH I am convinced that some 98% of the much propagandized strafings of civillians were simply due to identification difficulties, and/or individual pilots who didn't care much what and who they were shooting up, as long as it was enemy territory.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 7, 2009)

I disagree.

All men must be accountable for their actions.

Even in war. Heat of battle.

Not snap decisions which may be life or death...but discipline must be absolute. 

There are guys under great combat stress in parts of the world and the only difference between a nutcase and a fully trained soldier is discipline.

If you allow actions due to combat stress without the discipline then its open season.

A man...even a soldier will be judged and cannot be allowed to go beserk coz he can.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 7, 2009)

One must remember the period clothing was far drabber in colourthen today and it would be hard to distinguish civvie from military . Trains were legit targets and they were often full of non combatants


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

The Basket said:


> I disagree.
> 
> All men must be accountable for their actions.
> 
> ...



Then people should not fight for people like you because you'll demand perfection and invariably ultimately punish them for serving you imperfectly. Back seat drivers like you are the reason terrorists use human shields. If they don't get our soldiers, armchair moralists will. Someday no one will want to go out to the battlefield and read Miranda rights to terrorists instead of shooting them. Who will defend your ideals then?


----------



## Njaco (Dec 7, 2009)

Lets all heed Erich's advice and keep this civil and on-topic. Its too inviting to go to other areas. And name-calling.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

*taking a chill pill*


----------



## The Basket (Dec 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Then people should not fight for people like you because you'll demand perfection and invariably ultimately punish them for serving you imperfectly. Back seat drivers like you are the reason terrorists use human shields. If they don't get our soldiers, armchair moralists will. Someday no one will want to go out to the battlefield and read Miranda rights to terrorists instead of shooting them. Who will defend your ideals then?


I am ex raf...not an armchair driver. I would have defended my country and my ideals. Thanks for asking.

I don't demand perfection but if a POW or detainees were beaten to death by a soldier then he must face court martial for his action.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> My point is that you can't tell wheter they are civvies or a soliders, even if the person most far away on this picture is probably 150 meters away or less... how far away a fighter bomber pilot would be before starting an attack run? 500 m? 800? 1000?


My thought exactly. Even from a 100m I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Of course when strafing cities it must be a different story but I haven't heard them actually doing this. It seems it was more along roads outside of cities. No?
I was also thinking of how German fighter pilots hardly ever attacked ground targets in Russia, fearing it was too dangerous or either not their job. And I agree, imagine losing Hartmann by ground rifle fire!
It was also official strategy to attack crossroads and create traffic jams and overall confusion behind enemy lines. So where does one draw the line?

And I suppose a similar story can be told for the allies.



JoeB said:


> The issue of strafing per se could be considered separate as far as it related to what individual airmen or units did under their general orders, but it seems like the big picture issue was bombing policy, not strafing. Again for example the low atlitude fighter bomber raids by the Germans on smaller British cities ca. 1941 bombed town centers, did it really made a big difference whether or not they strafed too? (made a difference to a particular individual being strafed, I suppose, but not so much difference in general).
> 
> Allied or specifically USAAF fighters (which spent more time over Germany itself) routinely strafed targets like trains, road vehicles and river traffic where civilians were likely to be killed, yet the targets themselves had bona fide military value. And a lot of German 'strafing of civilians' would fall in the same category presumably. Another category for all combatants were areas closer to the ground combat front lines. Fighters demonstrably had a very hard time reliably telling their own soldiers from enemy frequently shooting up their own, so mistaking civilians for soldiers in such areas isn't a stretch at all; not the same as strafing city streets or farms far in the enemy's interior. There were many situations.
> 
> Joe


Excellent post!

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2009)

Several of you are getting out of hand! Keep this civil, or you can have this discussion in another forum!

I am not giving names, you know who you are!


----------



## A4K (Dec 8, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> What I am wondering is, a fighter or bomber that is strafing anything on the deck, is usually doing so when the pilots are assured of air supremacy.
> 
> In England, the LW didnt have air supremacy for too long, and I doubt the fighters were strafing anything that moves after 1940.



What I mentiond about my grandmother occurred ca. '43. (The fact that it was an Fw 190 points to the fact that it was post 1940 aswell). Though the Luftwaffe didn't have air superiority, they still performed strafing attacks against military targets in England, just as the Allies did on the continent before air superirity was won.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2009)

I think it offensive to say that soldiers of any nationality enjoy killing people. If they do, they cross a line and cease to be soldiers really.

Killing, even organised killing, must serve a purpose. The object in war is achieve an objective, and ultimately, in a strategic sense that objective is to bring your opponent to the negotiating table. Often that involves terrorising civilian populations by dorect means, though there are strict rules about targetting civilians. This is semantics I know, but it is not illegal to sink a ship full of civilans, or to bomb a city knowing that civilians are going to die in that city. Although, the law is biased to whoever wins the war....Dionitz was charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but Harris was not charged with the terror bombing of Dresden ( and other German cities).

On the other hand, the treatment of civilan populations by the nazis in occupied Europe was clearly criminal.

Im not sure at what point a crime is committed when attacking civilians. Clearly attacking and murdering civilans after their government has surrendered, is criminal. But I dont think strafing the civilians of a country still at war is any sort of crime

Now I am not too sure about the Allies, but I do know that Germans deliberately strafed columns of refugees, and bombed cities to generate panic and dislocate communications. For me, distasteful as it is, it is still a a valid military strategy.

I think it grossly offensive to couch things as "the Americans liked to kill civilans" With the possible exception of the SS Death squads, I would say that most germans aborred this sort of behaviour as well


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I think it offensive to say that soldiers of any nationality enjoy killing people. If they do, they cross a line and cease to be soldiers really.
> 
> Killing, even organised killing, must serve a purpose. The object in war is achieve an objective, and ultimately, in a strategic sense that objective is to bring your opponent to the negotiating table. Often that involves terrorising civilian populations by dorect means, though there are strict rules about targetting civilians. This is semantics I know, but it is not illegal to sink a ship full of civilans, or to bomb a city knowing that civilians are going to die in that city. Although, the law is biased to whoever wins the war....Dionitz was charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but Harris was not charged with the terror bombing of Dresden ( and other German cities).
> 
> ...



Very insightful post whether one agrees with it or not.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 8, 2009)

The Basket said:


> I am ex raf...not an armchair driver. I would have defended my country and my ideals. Thanks for asking.
> 
> I don't demand perfection but if a POW or detainees were beaten to death by a soldier then he must face court martial for his action.


I wouldn't consider a situation involving a detainee to be in the "heat of battle" anyway. I was talking about decisions made while people are in fact actively trying to kill you. 

For instance: you are in an urban environment and take fire from a building across the street, you return fire and civilians are killed. In the current political environment you cross your fingers and hope you aren't tried for murder in California.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 8, 2009)

It was war. I have no doubt many atrocities were committed by both sides. I do not pretend to only think or believe only the enemy participated or did actions which are questionable at best to being immoral.


----------



## stona (Dec 8, 2009)

There was a war on. Civilians ,on both sides, were targeted intentionally.I once had to explain to a youngster why a horse and cart would be a target for a fighter (from well known gun camera footage)
Anyone want to start a thread about the shooting of airmen in parachutes? That will really get you going.
Steve (feeling mischievous)


----------



## Erich (Dec 8, 2009)

I could say something that would really get this out of control about the eastern part of Germany during 1945 but will not dare...........

as spoken keep the emotions under control if you would, things of the bombing of Dresden as one please, go back to the original posters question


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2009)

well, I have no proof or first hand information, but I think it entirely possible, if only on an isolated or occasional basis, that German fighters strafed targets (8including civilians, during the war.

In 1942, German fighters were carrying out low level hit and run raids across the channel. It seems entirely possible that these sweeps included strafing runs of thye English countryside


----------



## Erich (Dec 8, 2009)

and don't forget the night intruder raids over England during March of 1945, the first one termed Unternehmen Gisela, anything and almost everything seen was blown apart by 2cm cannon rounds


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 8, 2009)

Erich said:


> and don't forget the night intruder raids over England during March of 1945, the first one termed Unternehmen Gisela, anything and almost everything seen was blown apart by 2cm cannon rounds




Good point Erich. I was about to mention those myself but you beat me to it.


----------



## piet (Dec 8, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Good point Erich. I was about to mention those myself but you beat me to it.


8)


----------



## Erich (Dec 8, 2009)

not sure if that above book covers what I was talking about but during the Night fighter attack on BC airfields, when in doubt and if the Ju 88G's could not find A/c to blast any parked vehicle, farmhouse, bldg or even running down the nearest street with lights on was targeted, if civilians were about, well ............just run like mad


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 8, 2009)

The Chris Goss book is mainly about the Jabo raids but does include accounts of strafing of civilians. An excellent book by the way from a respected author.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 8, 2009)

If you check this website...

NE Diary 1939-45; Diary Index

you will find instances of strafing throughout the war.


----------



## stona (Dec 9, 2009)

I've just spoken to my Aunt about this.They lived near Canterbury (Kent) during the war and her mother recalled waving at two aircraft streaking up the valley where they lived, thinking they were British, at which point they opened fire on their local railway station! I'm sure a station is a legitamate target but there could obviously have been civilians there. My grandmother was more embarassed to have mistaken them for friendly aircraft!
Steve


----------



## Timppa (Dec 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Is there any documentary evidence of the Luftwaffe actually strafing civilians in *Great Britain* during WW2? I have a feeling that this is like the WW1 "Red Cross" propaganda in that it didnt happen.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence of civilians being caught up in raids on airfields and other military targets is possible. But I just dont accept that the LW pilots would see someone riding a bicycle on a road in the middle of nowhere and then deciding to shoot him up.



Playing Dr. Phil here, but:
1. Is it important distinction whether they were civilians from UK, but not from France, Poland or Russia ?
2. Bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry and Stalingrad (the last one was particularly devastating) can hardly be denied, so does this curiosity concern Luftwaffe fighters only, not bombers (along the line: "The fighter pilots were the good Germans (Rall and Galland and all), only the others were the evil nazis")?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Playing Dr. Phil here, but:
> 1. Is it important distinction whether they were civilians from UK, but not from France, Poland or Russia ?
> 2. Bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry and Stalingrad (the last one was particularly devastating) can hardly be denied, so does this curiosity concern Luftwaffe fighters only, not bombers (along the line: "The fighter pilots were the good Germans (Rall and Galland and all), only the others were the evil nazis")?


I don't think it does. I think any of us would shoot anything that looked even vaguely like a target if it was us in the fighter and we were over enemy territory.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2009)

The attacks on civilians in Europe were legitimete because they served a military purpose, albeit a rather distant one. Perhaps the argument might be that attacking civilian targets in Britain was simply too far removed from any military purpose as to not contitute a legitimete target.

If so Im not buying it. A dead factory worker, or farmer, or even a child means a reduction in the war effort of the enemy, if only because of the grief it causes the enemy populace. Do that enough times and the enemy populace is going to become very despondent.

The dominance of the sky can play a significant morale effect, though it is impossible to measure. Planes running up and down the street shooting everything that moves is likley to have an effect far out of proportion to the actual damage caused


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2009)

Survivors remember in the day the Luftwaffe massacred 38 pupils at a London school | Mail Online


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2009)

total war as parsifal points out, just go reading through some brief data about 8th AF P-51's on 9th of February 45. Everything on the ground was shot up whether run by an engine or four/two legged.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The attacks on civilians in Europe were legitimete because they served a military purpose, albeit a rather distant one. Perhaps the argument might be that attacking civilian targets in Britain was simply too far removed from any military purpose as to not contitute a legitimete target.
> 
> If so Im not buying it. A dead factory worker, or farmer, or even a child means a reduction in the war effort of the enemy, if only because of the grief it causes the enemy populace. Do that enough times and the enemy populace is going to become very despondent.
> 
> The dominance of the sky can play a significant morale effect, though it is impossible to measure. Planes running up and down the street shooting everything that moves is likley to have an effect far out of proportion to the actual damage caused



Absolutely right. One dead factory worker may mean one less gun to kill your countrymen. One dead farmer may mean some enemy soldier misses a meal and falls asleep on sentry duty because his blood sugar is low. Of course there's the morale effects as well, which are much more immediate.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2009)

Erich said:


> total war as parsifal points out, just go reading through some brief data about 8th AF P-51's on 9th of February 45. Everything on the ground was shot up whether run by an engine or four/two legged.



Which is exactly what Churchill stated. Total war.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Playing Dr. Phil here, but:
> 1. Is it important distinction whether they were civilians from UK, but not from France, Poland or Russia ?
> 2. Bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry and Stalingrad (the last one was particularly devastating) can hardly be denied, so does this curiosity concern Luftwaffe fighters only, not bombers (along the line: "The fighter pilots were the good Germans (Rall and Galland and all), only the others were the evil nazis")?



I was quite specific in it being Great Britain. I know the LW strafed civilians in other countries, mainly because they could with impunity.

But I didnt think they could do so on a large scale in GB, as the LW never had air superiority and was risking their aircraft in low level attacks with no military value.

As for whether it was good or bad, I have no judgement on it. Im only trying to see if there is evidence of widespread LW strafing attacks on GB.


----------



## Juha (Dec 9, 2009)

Hello Clay
Quote:"I think any of us would shoot anything that looked even vaguely like a target if it was us in the fighter and we were over enemy territory"

You can count me out.

In general, I'm pretty sure that at least after WWII indiscriminate killing of civilians was banned by Geneva Conventions and I think it was not entirely accepted even before that. There was probably some legal base of the hanging of Löhr by Yugoslavs after WWII because of the bombing of Belgrad in 1941. Not saying that Löhr deserved his sentence, I'm only saying that if one of the victorious countries really want to hang some of the bomber commanders of the losers they would have found some juridical justification for that. IIRC LeMay said to his adviser McNamara in 45, he was talking on firebombing of Japanese cities, something like that "we are better to win this war or we will be hanged on this."

Juha


----------



## Amsel (Dec 9, 2009)

It is very difficult for the modern western man to concieve of the viciousness of war and especially the conflicts of the past.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

You know, I told my Biology class earlier this semester that people will get less and less able to understand how the world was when the human race had no choice but to outgrow their food and living space. It's taking the idea a new direction but birth control has been a huge factor in keeping us from being at each other's throats over scraps of bread.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 9, 2009)

They must have been floating above it as the WTC was only 110 stories tall.

Regardless, I would suppose there are/were some crazy people in all the air forces that enjoyed doing that, I would think that is the exception more then the rule.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2009)

Other folks beat me to the punch about WWII being Total War in which the entire resources of the nations involved were focussed on the achievement of military success. Pretty much anything becomes a target (with the obvious exception of Geneva Cross/Red Crescent marked buildings and vehicles) when war has escalated to the extent that a nation is rationing food and ceasing production of domestic items like washing machines and refrigerators because you need the factories to make weapons.

The other factor to be considered is that the combatants on all sides were, for the most part, civilians in uniform. Conscripting a guy, dressing him in a poorly-fitting, itchy uniform, providing much-truncated wartime training so he can operate a weapon and then sending him to the front is very a very different proposition to the modern conception, at least in most Western nations, of a professional military organisation, and this must impact some issues of discipline (although it doesn't excuse deliberately illegal acts, eg the maltreatment of POWs or operating "death camps").

Finally, one must also remember that WWII was largely fought with censored press (even within the democratic participants). There was no CNN watching over the shoulder to report every mistake, and much reporting was altered by doctors of spin to ensure it made a positive contribution to the war effort. Again, we often forget how different Total War is to the conflicts most nations have been involved in since 1945.

To get back to the point, though, the Luftwaffe undoubtedly straffed civilians in the UK but I suspect it was done on an opportunity basis rather than being part of a deliberate operational plan. toUndermining an adversary's civilian morale was critical to the war efforts of all nations involved in the struggle. Only the US was largely immune to such efforts because of geographic separation from the actual battle areas. 

Just my two penn'orth in hopes of continuing this discussion in a level-headed manner.


----------



## Juha (Dec 10, 2009)

heh, when I got my military training decades ago, oldest regulars in my unit had fought in WWII as were my uncles. And as combat engineer squad leader most of my training was minelaying, also by using anti-personnel mines, which are really beasty but effective weapons to maim people, about the ½ of AP mines I was trained to use were WWII types as were part of weaponry I was trained to use and as were our boots, helmets etc. And I would not have any objections to use AP mines in conflict in planned manner but would have objected their use indiscriminately in areas where there are many civilians around, even if I admit that they were beasty things. With that background and being a trained historian, 20th century being my specialty, I think I have some understanding on that era.

Juha


----------



## Amsel (Dec 10, 2009)

The culture of war and death that was prevalent from 1940 til 1945 is hard for many to understand. Even though it is prevalent to this day. The peoples of the participating nations were able to endure much hardship, to the participants it was a feeling of national survival. Many units involved became a part of the culture of war. All sides wanted to win. The Germans were able to deal death and destruction for national survival, and the Brit's did the same. The Americans were angry that they were drug away from their peaceful life to fight in Europe and the Pacific and fought with great anger. Propaganda on all sides was great and caused the enemy to become almost non-human beasts. In reality it is an essential part of war to be able to disassociate the enemy with good human characteristics. The propaganda used was a great success, maybe too successful. Many Americans still consider Germans to be Nazi's in the back of their heads. 

Situations like the strafing of civilians, the punishment of civilians for partisan efforts, the terror-bombing of cities, the collection of gold teeth( prevalent in all theaters, USMC, etc), and the shooting of members of Waffen-SS units, are the norm and not isolated incidents. In fact the ferociousness defines the war.


----------



## Juha (Dec 10, 2009)

Hello Amsel
to us Finns that was/is pretty clear, we fought against SU, during the Winter War alone. And men of my generation were also trained to fight against SU, that was never plainly stated, but we were trained to fight against much more powerful, armour heavy attacker which had lot of firepower. If one looks a map, it wasn't/isn't difficult to figure out against who we were trained to fight. IMHO in mass armies most of men saw themselves as civilians in uniform, seeing war unwanted but necessary evil period of their life. When war was over they went to continue their civilian life if they could, to rather many that was difficult because of physical and/or psychological scars they had gotten.

On LW over GB, IMHO there were cases of strafing civilians but those were exceptions.

Juha


----------



## The Basket (Dec 13, 2009)

The Human Being is a very adaptable species.

Give him a plough and he is a farmer...give him a gun and he is a soldier.

Most of us could adapt in ways we couldnt beleive and survive because survival is all we had.


----------



## Clave (Dec 18, 2009)

I wish I had paid more attention when my grandmother was still alive, but I do remember her saying that a Messerschmitt flew down Christchurch High Street, guns blazing, and everyone diving out of they way..


----------



## Timppa (Dec 18, 2009)

Clave said:


> I wish I had paid more attention when my grandmother was still alive..



Absolutely. Regardless of war or peace issues . So many questions never asked..


----------



## Split_s (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm surprised they had the fuel and bullets to spend on such missions. Such is war I suppose. Keep the enemy population frightened.


----------



## dutchman (Aug 21, 2013)

I remember watching a "documentary / propaganda, depends on which side you were on" that was made in 42. It discribed the attack in the lowlands before France fell. They claimed the Germans straffed civilians fleeing on the roads. It wasn't so much to inflict damage as to herd them into the path of advancing French and British troops trying to move up to fight the German ground forces. I'm sure this would have caused some casualties, but the purpose was tactical. But once you cross that line targets become less "clear" as to fight or pass. I guess it would be effectice buying time for the troops on the ground.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 21, 2013)

gerrywac said:


> My mother was a child in a farming family in western germany during the war and was injured during a fighter bomber attack on the farm she worked on so it's not a one way thing.
> 
> Although it was an RAF sinle seat fighter she sain the Americans were the worst culprits and used to enjoy it



Regardless of anything else, how could she tell if the Americans were enjoying it? Chances are very slim that she'd be able to see the pilots' expressions. To see what I mean, stand at one end of a soccer stadium and try to read the expressions of a person in the top row of the stands at the other end, when that person is wearing helmet and goggles and behind a thick piece of laminated glass.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2013)

Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive -- RG-60.4452

Watching this video, the first 3/4 of the video is strafing trains but after that you see the fighter strafing random houses and even at one point appears to strafe a horse and carriage


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Regardless of anything else, how could she tell if the Americans were enjoying it? Chances are very slim that she'd be able to see the pilots' expressions. To see what I mean, stand at one end of a soccer stadium and try to read the expressions of a person in the top row of the stands at the other end, when that person is wearing helmet and goggles and behind a thick piece of laminated glass.


Add to that, travelling at high rate of speed while keeping an eye out for enemy aircraft, power lines, etc...


----------



## jim (Aug 21, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Regardless of anything else, how could she tell if the Americans were enjoying it? Chances are very slim that she'd be able to see the pilots' expressions. To see what I mean, stand at one end of a soccer stadium and try to read the expressions of a person in the top row of the stands at the other end, when that person is wearing helmet and goggles and behind a thick piece of laminated glass.


 
she could tell this by the general behavior of the american fighter pilots. If they could not find LW planes would attack wermacht vehicles . If they could not find vehicles would hunt fire brigades and ambulances .After that civilians After that children, then horses,then cows,then dogs ,cats any sigh of life. They would attack even empty farms and trees They were doing repeated passes until they were sure everything was dead. Often, in they hurry to attack, were fighting between them who would go first. Some in their lust for killing flew into the ground by pilot mistake
And of course it is well known the american order to shoot any german pilot in parachute
These terror stories were not told just by germans. There are many stories from alleid pows that suffered such attacks that confirm the germans witnesses. Eg It was not enough to destory a train . They would strafe the survivors. Even in May 1945 was not enough to sink ships and boats on german coasts. They would strafe the survivors in the water as well .British pilots too
Or they would execute anyone wearing a black uniform. Regardless if truly was a criminal SS ,or a panzer soldier or just a 15 year old kid that was just given a black uniform from the stocks
LW did occasionaly strafed civilians. As targets of opportunity and that was pilot s decision .But not in the scale, and official aprroved way that the alleis did


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2013)

jim said:


> she could tell this by the general behavior of the american fighter pilots.
> 
> 
> Some in their lust for killing flew into the ground by pilot mistake


That is the most ignorant statements I've read on this forum, you're f#*king done, I'm sick of your BS!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2013)

Thread locked due to stupidity


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2013)

> ..And of course it is well known the american order to shoot any german pilot in parachute...



I dunno Joe - this was pretty ignorant too! Amazing..................


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 21, 2013)

jim, you dumbshit. I told you not to sneeze.


----------

