Controversial Ideas: Did We Ever Need an Independent Air Force

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I don't know where you got your figures for the success of the bombing campaign on Bulgaria being such a success, but they are wildly off.
Between 43 and 44 the allies bombed Sofia 10 times, the total deaths from those bombings amounted to 1374 lives.
The worst raid was on March 30th, 44. 139 people killed.
In all the raids they destroyed 12,564 buildings. Sounds like maybe you got # of lives taken confused with buildings destroyed.

I think that Bulgaria first declared itself a neutral in the war, and then went over to the allied side just a few months later had a lot more to do with the fact that the Russian army was just a few miles from their border, than the "devastating " bombing of Sofia..
 
Bulgaria joined the axis in 1941, but steadfastly refused to join in the invasion of the SU. her a/c participated in the defence of Ploesti, and Bulgarian ground forces were used in anti partisan and occupation duties in both Yugoslavia and parts of Northern Greece. What existed of the Bulgarian Navy was used in escort operations in the black sea and Aegean, where there were a number of clashes with VMF submarines, who were indiscriminate in their attacks on shipping. There were losses to the small Bulgarian merchant marine, generally transporting fuel oil to Italy from Rumania and troops and war material to the Russian front in the reverse direction .

The Paris treaty of 1947 confirmed the incorporation of Southern Dobruja (formerly part of Rumania) into Bulgaria after it had been more or less forceably annexed under the Vienna accords. this made Bulgaria the only German ally that increased its pre-war territory. The occupied parts of the Aegean region and Vardar Macedonia that had also been ceded to Bulgaria by the Germans were returned, with many hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians forceably expelled, including 150,000 Bulgarians being expelled from Western Thrace at the end of the war. These expulsions tended to very brutal affairs as the Bulgarians were hated in the territories they occupied.
 
Last edited:
Bulgaria was not "knocked out of the war" and Sofia was not "flattened".

Bulgaria was neutral when WWII (Europe) broke out, however, with the prospect of a German invasion, Bulgaria decided to join the Axis in 1941. The fact that Germany had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union at the time helped Bulgaria's decision. When the Soviets were on Bulgaria's border in September 1944, they declared neutrality again (little good it did them).

In regards to the bombing of Bulgarian cities, nearly all the cities bombed had military based (air fields) in their boundaries or were key crossroads for troops and equipment.

The RBAF had a large base in Yambol (built by Imperial Germany during WWI, by the way), they had a large military complex at Plovdiv both for RBAF and Luftwaffe that was used for joint operations, training, supply and command & control. There were RBAF bases at Karlovo, Pleven, Kavala, Kavarna, Varna (also a naval base), Burgas (also a naval base), Skopje and several in and around Sofia.

Out of all the bombing raids on Sofia, less than 1,400 people perished.

And to add to the "flattening of Sofia" comment, I've spent some time in Sofia, she has a considerable amount of buildings that predate the United States. The majority of buildings lost were not from Allied bombings, but Soviet "urban renewal" projects.
 
So many holes in that article. Including it's own dichotomies.

Suffice it to say that there is little else that is more argued one way or another than that of the morality of dropping the bomb and there are plenty of revisionists to help obfuscate reality.
Here's one reality I don't often see mentioned: while the US military planners suggested over 1 million allied casualties were "probable" (a figure I don't recall ever being challenged), how about the suggestion that it also saved a great many Japanese lives.
Remaining population in Japan at the time was about 70 million people. The military still had a lot of relatively fresh first line troops on the mainland (I don't recall how many divisions) with materiel ready to come back to Japan. The military had been training the populace to fight back and was willing (and estimated 1/3 of the population would be casualties) to sacrifice the civilian population in order to "have that fight" to a more "glorious and honorable" end in tune with their samurai culture.
It's certainly more complicated than that, but I believe that the bomb did hasten the end and saved lives on both sides. The suffering of the Japanese civilian population as a result of the ambitions of Tojo should not be forgotten.
All that said, yes, absolutely the SU coming at the end did have an effect.
 
GrauGeist said:
Bulgaria was not "knocked out of the war" and Sofia was not "flattened".

Bulgaria was neutral when WWII (Europe) broke out, however, with the prospect of a German invasion, Bulgaria decided to join the Axis in 1941.
Click to expand...
Which prevented an invasion?
The fact that Germany had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union at the time helped Bulgaria's decision.
Click to expand...
How so exactly?
In regards to the bombing of Bulgarian cities, nearly all the cities bombed had military based (air fields) in their boundaries or were key crossroads for troops and equipment.
Click to expand...
It's hard to tell exactly what the intended targets seem to be -- I base this on the fact that during certain periods of 1944, the RAF was controlling some of the 8th AF's aircraft.
 
soulezoo said:
So many holes in that article. Including it's own dichotomies.

Suffice it to say that there is little else that is more argued one way or another than that of the morality of dropping the bomb and there are plenty of revisionists to help obfuscate reality.
Here's one reality I don't often see mentioned: while the US military planners suggested over 1 million allied casualties were "probable" (a figure I don't recall ever being challenged), how about the suggestion that it also saved a great many Japanese lives.
Remaining population in Japan at the time was about 70 million people. The military still had a lot of relatively fresh first line troops on the mainland (I don't recall how many divisions) with materiel ready to come back to Japan. The military had been training the populace to fight back and was willing (and estimated 1/3 of the population would be casualties) to sacrifice the civilian population in order to "have that fight" to a more "glorious and honorable" end in tune with their samurai culture.
It's certainly more complicated than that, but I believe that the bomb did hasten the end and saved lives on both sides. The suffering of the Japanese civilian population as a result of the ambitions of Tojo should not be forgotten.
All that said, yes, absolutely the SU coming at the end did have an effect.
Click to expand...


The issue raised is not that the bomb was moral or not moral. Neither do the articles refute that the bomb didn't save lives.

The issue was whether the bomb caused the Japanese to surrender, or seek to surrender.

I don't fully accept that the invasion of Manchukuo caused the surrender of japan either.

Japan had been seeking a way for an "honourable peace" since the defeat at Phil Sea. By 1945 their core demands had been reduced to two things….respect for the emperor, and that the home islands would neither occupied or that the nation of japan be broken up. The reasoning behind Okinawa from the Japanese perspective was to demonstrate just how hard they would fight to achieve those objectives. The nation was prepared to commit national suicide to protect those values

The Potsdam declarations had played into the hardliners hands within the Japanese inner circle, however firm surrender negotiations were under way via Russian intermediaries by July 28th. In the finish the Japanese had to settle for watered down interpretations of their "core demands". Verbal undertakings only were given to respect the emperor, but it was close as to whether he would be put on trial after the war. Vague undertakings not to seek the dismemberment of the home islands were also given. The question as to why Japan was willing to accept on the 9August, what it could not accept before July 28th is very debateable. On the face of it, it would seem to me the Russian invasion was the most important factor. With their entry all the avenues for surrender via a third party were shut. This had to drive home conclusively that there was no alternative other than to surrender unconditionally to the allies. Whether the a-bomb influenced the Japanese in reaching that conclusion must surely have been the case, one would think, but it is open to debate in the contrary
 
Zipper730 said:
Which prevented an invasion?
Click to expand...
Yes, joining the Axis prevented Bulgaria from being occupied.

Zipper730 said:
How so exactly?
Click to expand...
With a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, Bulgaria felt that it wasn't betraying an old Ally. Sadly, Bulgaria felt that there was a certain "kinship" between them, but that was the old Russia, not the Soviet Russia and Bulgaria found out the hard way innthe end.

Zipper730 said:
It's hard to tell exactly what the intended targets seem to be -- I base this on the fact that during certain periods of 1944, the RAF was controlling some of the 8th AF's aircraft.
Click to expand...
There were clusters of Military bases that ringed Sofia. Two fighter bases, a Flight training base, a Bomber base and a Freya complex not to mention Army bases, depots, command infrastructure and so on. There was also a strategic highway that was the sole access to Serbia and points west (still is, actually), resulting in a high density of supply depots and military traffic.

The Allies didn't bomb cities for the sake of killing civilians - Sofia and the immediate area was a target rich environment.
 
One of the original US demands was an unconditional surrender. What ended up happening was an unconditional surrender with the proviso the emperor wouldn't tossed from the throne.
 
buffnut453 said:
And these various thread diversions have exactly what to do with the need for independent air forces? Just sayin'... :)
Click to expand...

Untitled.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

aidenmac16
11th Air Force
Replies
7
Views
714
GreenKnight121
GreenKnight121
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
pinehilljoe
D
8Th Air Force Fighter Groups
Replies
3
Views
1K
pbehn
P
C
Question about 8Th air force WW2
Replies
5
Views
1K
criannick
C
NTGray
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
740
Jabberwocky
J
Back