Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Overreaction ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Symberta Fannyhammock's Festive Funbags (U2079219) on Saturday, 27th October 2007
Just why did we in the UK madly overreact and completely overestimate the German war machine, particulary the Luftwaffe's, capabilty ?
In the run-up to and after the declaration of War we supplied every UK person with a useless gas mask, built dozens of huge new hospitals for the predicted hundreds of thousands bombing casualties, needlessly evacuated millions of town and city children to rural areas, slaughtered millions of beloved pet dogs in case of a Rabies epidemic, shut down all Theatres and Cinemas, took down every road sign to foil the invading Germans, turned off street lighting and reduced car headlamp efficiency leading to hundreds of traffic related deaths and armed untrained ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Guard personnel with rifles leading to hundreds of accidental deaths through misuse.
Was anyone in charge ? -
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Sunday, 28th October 2007
Well becuse there had always been the assumption that a large scale airbourne assault would decimate urban areas.I think it was Stanley Baldwin who claimed "The Bomber will always get through".Now given that aircraft technology had progessed massively since the end of WW1 the capacity of the aircraft to cause damage had in course also increased.If you want to see the impact of the "overestimated" Luftwaffe,look at the devastation caused to Rottedam or Warsaw.Go to Coventry,Liverpool and of course London to see just how much of the pre 1939 architecture is left.Certainly in Coventry case,the medieval city was decimated.
Where was the garauntee that the Germans wouldn't use gas?.There wasnt one!.As for cinema's being closed,I suppose the idea was that it was initially considered that having a large group of people in one place was a risk if there was an air raid on,one unlucky direct hit = large casulties.Street lighting could probably be seen from a great height at night,leave them on and you might as well put a large luminous target up!As for the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Guard,now you are just being silly,they were there as a reserve force,the country was in the mire certainly post Dunkirk and despite the jibes did an important job.
They were desperate times,and it very easy with hindsight to critisise and mock.The net result was the people of the time actually had to live that time and make decisions on the percieved threats and and dangers of the time.I doubt these days the population of the country today would cope with what the generation of the 1939 -1940 generation. -
Message 3
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 28th October 2007
As has been written, all the predictions were that there would be bombing attacks as soon as war was declared and the only comparisons were what happened in Spain and China.
Wikipedia suggests 800,000 schoolchildren were evacuated.
Are there figures for the numbers of people killed by vehicles because of headlaps being covered? There were not that many cars on the road and I have not seen anything to suggest that it produced large numbers of fatalities. It was probably was not necessary in rural areas but was a general rule. Much of the traffic on the roads would be military and they would use reduced lighting anyway.
I thought theatres and cinemas were only closed briefly, again because immediate bombing was expected.
There were accidents with people killed by both ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Guard and regular Army sentries but were there hundreds? I have only come across the grave of one person killed by a sentry and he was a member of the NOFU killed by one of their own sentries.
How effective the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Guard would have been against an invasion is debatable but they were able to take over the responsibility for guarding KPs and checkpoints leaving the regular army to concentrate on training and preparing for invasion.
There was no way of knowing that Hitler would avoid bombing civilian targets for some time and was very reluctant to use gas even though he had more advanced CW than the Allies because he thought we would also have them. Perhaps the high level of preparedness for CW attack helped convince him that we were also be prepared to use them.
I don't know how many pets were put down but there was also the need to save on food and many people were going into the services or away for war work so unable to look after pets. Also there was the possibility of large number of dogs running loose after their owners had been killed in bombing raids. It seems logical to reduce the numbers in urban areas particularly.
MB -
Message 4
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 28th October 2007
'Just why did we in the UK madly overreact and completely overestimate the German war machine, particulary the Luftwaffe's, capabilty ?'
Becuase they couldn't see the future and hadn't got the luxury of hindsight which you imagine makes you so superior over them
-
Message 5
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 28th October 2007
Yes someone was in charge, but they left their crystal ball at home, didn't know what the future held for certain, and so prepared for contingencies where failing to do so would have catastrophic consequences had they occurred--like an invasion.
So what you have are hundreds of traffic related deaths from the lighting restrictions designed to complicate the German's bombing raids. It was a terrible decision given that you had what, only 2 or 3 dozen people die from the bombing? Apparently your leader's incompetent intelligience was unable to discover that the Germans were really only dropping mustard jars filled with black powder, not real bombs that could do real damage.
The evacuations were of course completely needless, as we now know that they could have just called up Goering, inquired where he was going to strike next, and only evacuate that area. Especially the kids, I can't imaging why they were concerned about the grubby little rug rats, should have taken better care of the dogs instead. Funneled medical supplies and resources to the pet vets. Sweeping all those resources into the military services were just silly. Everybody knows soldiers fight better if they know the only treatment for a wounded soldier is that last round in the revolver.
And the home guard thing was pretty absurd. The whole notion that making themselves a harder place to invade might complicate invasion planning. What an irrational idea. Even if the Germans would have invaded, I am sure the UK wouldn't have lost more than a couple hundred people, so it really wasn't worth the massive casualties sustained by the home guard effort. It is a wonder your population ever recovered from all those accidental shootings. Would have been better to just threaten to feed the Nazi's English restaurant food.
Besides, the European experience showed Hitler really to just be a big lovable fuzzball who wanted to expand the market for Bavarian lager. -
Message 6
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Because they were fighting a combination of the previous war and one based on untried theory.
Air forces believed they could win the war alone by destroying enemy infrastructure and the ability to fight. Turns out they can't, but in 1939, that was a seriously held belief.
The cities were expected to be a targeted for very heavy bombing, hence the precautions. And no-one realized that German bombing would actually cause as few casualties as it did. If the Germans had been able to bomb to the level the allies had in 1944, then all the precautions would have been invaluable.
Gas attacks were expected because Britain had gas weapons and all sides had employed them in the Great War, so although neither side wanted to use them, they didn't trust the other not to.
Also, it gave the UK a sense of unity and national purpose. After the fall of France, it was something that Britain could do to keep morale up. The classic example is the campaign to collect scrap metal - saucepans, railwings and the like. The idea was to use it to build Spitfires, though in reality by the time the metal was being collected there was no shortage. The campaign was continued because it helped civilians to feel they were doing their bit. -
Message 7
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Anything done which makes a strategy less likely to suceed makes it a less attractive stategy. So the failure of the Germans to pursue a particular stategy, such as chemical weapon attacks on cities or invasion, doesn't mean that the counter measures were a wasted effort--as they may have contributed decisively to the decision not to pursue it.
Switzerland is a good example. We have good reason to believe that it was their extensive countermeasures to make invasion costly, even though it would have suceeded, that detered it. -
Message 8
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 29th October 2007
It is quite common to read that a particular weapon system was a waste of money because it was not used but the fact that it was not used was often sufficient to justify its existence. Most coast gun batteries never fired in anger but they kept enemy warships away from harbours, most barrage balloons never brought down an enemy aircraft but they kept them at higher altitudes around vulnerable targets etc.
MB -
Message 9
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 29th October 2007
I'd imagine my grandfather was typical of many members of the home guard. By WWII he was considered too old for active service, but having fought in WWI he would certainly have known how to handle a rifle.
-
Message 10
Posted by Symberta Fannyhammock's Festive Funbags (U2079219) on Monday, 29th October 2007
Hindsight or not, are we not entitled to, at least slightly, criticise our Wartime leaders ?
Due to poor peacetime intelligence grevious overestimations and were made and vital funds wasted on coastal invasion defences, myriad satellite airfields and unused hospitals that could have been used in more vital areas of the war effort.
That's all I'm saying. -
Message 11
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 30th October 2007
Due to poor peacetime intelligence grevious overestimations and were made and vital funds wasted on coastal invasion defences, myriad satellite airfields and unused hospitals that could have been used in more vital areas of the war effort.
Μύ
The coastal invasion defences probably were one factor in deterring invasion.
Many of the satellite airfields were upgraded to full operational airfields and others were used for dispersal or storage, I doubt that many were not used at all.
I was not aware of hospitals built in preparation for the war, I thought many wartime hospitals were built during the war as part of the preparations for Overlord though the RAF and US Air Force had hospitals for their casualties. The ones built for Overlord were probably the only ones that were under utilised because casualties were lower than expected.
When you sell your car do you complain that you had wasted money on seat belts and air bags because you never used them?
MB -
Message 12
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 30th October 2007
Hindsight or not, are we not entitled to, at least slightly, criticise our Wartime leaders ? Μύ
No, we aren't entitled to criticize those whose decisions are seen to be wrong only with the benefit of hindsight. We can say the decisions themselves were wrong, but no fault lies with those who made them based on the only and best available evidence. To criticize people we need to put ourselves in the position they were in with only the evidence they had and then to come to a better decision.
With regards to theatre closing, didn't this happen in response to a theatre actually being hit and having high casualties?
I had a bit of a surf after my post yesterday. The Coventry Blitz killed just under 600 (official estimate), but maybe up to 1000. The bombing of Dresden killed 20,000 minimum. Those in charge expected the Germans to be able to do to Coventry what we did to Dresden and planned accordingly. Yes, they got it wrong, but what if they'd been right and only provided for 600 dead? The bombing of Rotterdam made 80,000 people homeless. That could have happened to London. The fact that it didn't may be a testament to the RAF.
I'll still come back to my earlier point that doing something was seen to be good for the morale of the country. Maybe the actions were worthless in material terms, but emotionally they had some value. Empty hospitals? Cheap to run and makes the workers on e.g. Southampton docks more willing to put up with being bombed because they think the government willing to care for them if things get really bad. -
Message 13
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 30th October 2007
The expected damage and casualty figures were not plucked from the air. They were based on the actual casualties and damage incurred in the Gotha raids of WWI, scaled up for the expected weight of bombing the Germans were thought capable of. Civil Defence (far more than air interception or AA fire) in the form of shelters etc made it possible to carry on most activities in London against the assault the Luftwaffe was actually capable. It was concieved, and equipped, for the support of ground forces, and was not capable of a strategic bomber assault. Take a look at the casualty figures in the Tokyo fire bombing raids and consider the likely effects of that on London.
BTW - "The bomber will always get through" was the Trenchard doctrine, part of the "seamless robe" theory which was in vogue in air circles before the war. It is arguable that although it was not true at the outbreak of WWII, it was very nearly true by the end, and is certainly true now, that a full-scale air assault on civilian populations is capable of paralysing a country's war effort, although the accompanying breakdown in civilian morale seems not to eventuate as the doctrine of the time assumed it would. -
Message 14
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 1st November 2007
I would not regard Britainβs preparations from air attacks as an overreaction, in fact quite the opposite. Given the assumed impact of mass bomber raids it is surprising that the government did not adopt more draconian measures.
Many people assumed that civilians would panic and be unable to cope with under air attacks, I suppose it is only normal to assume the worst. But as it turned out the British population carried on pretty normally in their work and recreation even during the Blitz. Of course it must be said that the German population also stood up very well under the much heavier allied bombings.
Of course nobody was in the position before the war to know how civilian populations would behave, and just like today the British government had a very low opinion of the British people.
It was certainly not just Britain that assumed air attacks would lead to mass panic.
The German plan to invade Britain, operation Sealion, mentions the bombing of London.
OKW Directive, 16th August 1940.
βon D-Day minus 1 the Luftwaffe is to make a strong attack on London, which should cause the population to flee the city and block the roadsβ -
Message 15
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 1st November 2007
kurt
bit mean of you to make light of road casualties caused by the blackout - it was actually quite serious
just ask my father - he used to ride 15 miles to work in enfield each morning at 5am - one day he cycled straight into a bomb crater that wasnt there the day before and ended up CARRYING his bike to work
he still hates the germans because of this lol
st -
Message 16
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 1st November 2007
Yeah, my kids and my employees tell me that I am mean all the time. So go ahead, pile on.
-
Message 17
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 1st November 2007
kurt
lol - yes i know - ur kids have complained on here
i missed the end of his (much repeated) tale - when he was late for work that day (obviously) he put his very bent bicycle in the shed and heard a whoomph - when he got to his workshop it was gone due to a doodlebug - 8 dead in tmc enfield
he still hates krauts cos his bicvcle got bent tho lol
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.