Daily reminder that England was the first country to start bombing

>>2524480
elaborate

>>2524480
If by "the War" you mean WW2, that can't possibly be right, as there was a Luftwaffe strike on Warsaw, Operation Wasserkante, before Britain even entered the war on the 3rd.


http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/ter/ltr-pol.html

>What are Wieluń, Rotterdam, and Warsaw

>>2524480
Daily reminder that England won the war.

>>2524480
Bombing civilians came naturally to the Anglo. They'd been bombing civilians in India in attempts to suppress rebel areas

>>2524495
No, the bombing Warsaw during the siege was entirely legitimate since it was a heavily garrisoned frontline city.

>>2524521

>No, the bombing Warsaw during the siege

>Siege of Warsaw starts on September 8th
>Bombing, of course, starts hours after war is declared.

No, it was actually about 300 kilometers away from the front lines at that point, not that fine distinctions like this matter to the Eternal Dindu that is Germany.

File: guernica3.jpg (176KB, 1250x556px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1250x556px

I'll just leave this here~~~

>>2524480
guernica during the spanish civil war? french in damascus in 1923?
>>2524521
Nazis obliterated Rotterdam for the hell of it, which is a shame cause a lot of nice shit got destroyed.

>>2524496
>>2524495
No Rotterdam and Warsaw were legitimate and legal and in compliance with rules of war, those were cities on the frontline garrisoned by troops at the time of bombing, and were not declared Open Cities, making them legitimate targets.

When Churchill ordered civilian bombings of civilian industrial targets in the Ruhr area (Chamberlain had refused to authorise bombing of civilian targets), this was prior to the blitz. They targeted farmers and industrial workers, Churchill was the one who crossed the moral threshold of deliberately bombing civilians.

>>2524552
>No Rotterdam and Warsaw were legitimate and legal and in compliance with rules of war, those were cities on the frontline garrisoned by troops at the time of bombing,

No, they weren't, because Wasserkante was literally on the first day of the war, well before the front line had advanced to Warsaw, and targeted the city more or less at random, although some of that might have been the cloud cover obscuring targets.

>>2524568
Operation Wasserkanne was targeting military targets. They killed civilians but they were unintentional and were targeting military.

Britain was the first to intentionally target civilians

>>2524552
Considering the Ruhr contained much of Germany's industry, it was viable (arguably necessary) military target.

>Churchill crossed the moral threshold of bombing civilians.

The bombing of Wieluń began on 1 September 1939, and is considered the first attack of the war. There were no military units in the city, and the first buildings hit were a hospital and a church.

>>2524592
How many times do I have to tell you? Bombing a city that's frontline or garrisoned or both, is legitimate. Wielun was a frontline city.

Ruhr was neither frontline nor garrisoned, they targeted farmhouses and plant workers. At that point in the war German industry want even optimised for total war, they were just ordinary civilians.

>>2524604
Stop moving the goalposts

England was not the first to start bombing civilians in the war. Germany was. They bombed Wieluń on 1 September, 1939. It doesn't matter why they did it, what matters is that the OP has been disproven. If you don't want to get BTFO, try formulating your original assertion more carefully next time

>>2524604
Is it legitimate when you started the war for the sole purpose of expanding your borders, and killing or enslaving much of native population of captured territory so that you can resettle it with your own people? Why are you trying so desperately to defend Nazis?

>They were just ordinary citizens
The same could be said for most of the people killed in bombings on both sides. This is a moot point.

>>2524623
>deliberately targeting civilians

Bombing a frontline city as part of a military campaign or bombing a heavikybgarrisined city is not deliberately targeting civilians.

England started deliberately targeting civilians, that's a fact historians universally agree on.

>>2524625
The war was started because Poland joined a military alliance to encircle Germany, started persecuting Germans, and wouldn't let Germany have the German city of Danzig.

Shut up and read a history book before spouting off rubbish you learnt from a Spielberg film

>>2524537

I'd say "an inevitable military target only week away" is sufficient.

>>2524631

OP said nothing about deliberately targeting civilians, he asserted " England was the first country to start bombing civilians in the war."

>>2524639
Civilians caught in crossfire doesn't count as bombing civilians, otherwise civilians killed by artillery in ww1 would count

File: 1462161651435.jpg (114KB, 625x505px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 625x505px

>>2524661

>Civilians caught in crossfire doesn't count as bombing civilians

Yes it does, if you wanted to be more specific you should be more specific.

>otherwise civilians killed by artillery in ww1 would count

If you are asserting, say, "Germany were the first to start shelling civilians in WWI" all you would need to verify is who shelled civilians first, whether the intent was to kill them is irrelevant unless you specify.

>>2524543
>Picasso
This painting is suppose to be about the bombing of civilians in the Spanish civil war but it's completely unintelligible. It looks like nothing but abstract images that have no meaning whatsoever and you couldn't tell what it is even suppose to represent without context. Why Pablo Picasso is held in any good regard by sane people is beyond me.

>>2524661
>dropping bombs on civilians isn't bombing civilians
this really made me think

>>2524512
And in the middle east

>>2524832
t. Goebbels

>>2524661
No guvna, we weren't bombing dresden, we were bombing their buildings and a bunch of thickos got in the way

>>2524480
Long before that. It was their secret to power. From Elizabeth cooperating with pirates to bombing refugees in Dresden, Britain was fueled by the blood of innocents.

>>2524480
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IGHByjToO4

>>2524633

Please, tell us how the Poles were persecuting Germans.

>>2524633
>dey wuz good boys, dey just wanted a bit uh lebensraum fo dey families

>>2524480
>England understands the basics of total war
>Germany doesn't
>England is therefore in the wrong

I'll just assume this is frogposting.

>>2524661
>dropping explosive projectiles on civilians isn't the same as bombing them

>>2524633
>it's a /pol/ user believes German propaganda on the causes of WW2 post

I had forgotten why I left that board. Thanks Anon.

>>2524633
Please do tell which "history books" you've read.

>>2524954
>"innocents"

>>2524959
>oppressing subhumans
>evil

>>2524604
Rotterdam was not even close to a front line.

>>2524552
Which German cities were bombed despite being declared Open Cities?

File: 4L_w740OWeP.jpg (45KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 498x498px

>>2524552
>cherry picking this hard
by those definitions then Dresden was a valid target

>>2524480
>England

you mean Britain right?

and also the japs were killing civies long before

>>2524480

The first deliberate targeting of civilians by air were by the germans in Guernica

>>2524636
>we were going to attack you so what's wrong with executing hostages

>>2524480
Wielun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84

File: 1489169486293.jpg (56KB, 593x559px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 593x559px

>>2524633
>The war was started because Poland joined a military alliance to encircle Germany
An outright lie
>started persecuting Germans
It's not like Germany was already persecuting people it didn't like or anything.
>and wouldn't let Germany have the German city of Danzig.
Danzig would have voted itself into Germany after a few years.

>>2525784
Do it again bomber Harris

File: 1488662823847.jpg (205KB, 700x776px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 700x776px

>>2524633
>sure, we'll look the other way while you re-arm
>sure, we'll look the other way while you re-militarize the rhineland
>sure, we'll look the other way while you annex austria
>sure, we'll look the other way while you dismember our ally

Clearly, ((((((((((Britain)))))))))) was hell-bent on war with Germany.
I really feel so bad for Chamberlain, he worked with Hitler in good faith, all logic and good sense was with him, who could want another war just 20 years after the war? Everyone knew how horrible war is but (((Hitler))) couldn't be reasoned with and he had to destroy Europe, costing millions of lives and ruining nationalism for all future generations.

>>2524832
How can you not understand this painting
It's taught in almost every school
Inb4 American 'education'

>>2525784
DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

>>2524537
>No, it was actually about 300 kilometers away from the front lines

100 km from the border actually

>>2524633
Of course mate, don't forget about the stab in the back of the jew, germany nerver loose ww1.

>>2524495
Not an attack on the city but rather on its airfields

File: He actually believes this.jpg (15KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 413x395px

>>2524521
>>2524552
>Anglos were the first to start bombing civilians
>Actually, the Germans did it first
>B-but they didn't mean to!

If the Wehrmacht could move as fast as your goalposts they'd have been in Moscow by eight weeks

>>2525898
I do know what the painting is suppose to be about but the painting itself just a bunch of silly images that barely allude to the bombing of Guernica.

File: this triggers the southerner.jpg (908KB, 2364x3000px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 2364x3000px

>>2524480
War is cruelty, there's no point in trying to reform it. And the crueler war is, the sooner it will be over.

war has one objective: victory. Everything else is a distraction
The only moral way to wage war is to do it in a way that ensures victory in the most expedient manner possible.

When you only attack military targets you leave unmolested the machinery that creates new military targets, you draw out the war over antiquated notions of "honor" and "decency" and make life an unending hell for the soldiers.

By attacking civilians you are attacking their means of waging war, you're destroying their ability to continue the fight.

War on an industrial scale is a question of which economy can outproduce the other.

>>2524480

This is old news, A.J.P. Taylor already wrote in the sixties:

>Before the war they listened to what Hitler said instead of looking at what he did. After the war they wanted to pin on him the guilt for everything which happened, regardless of the evidence. This is illustrated, for example; by the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted.

Overy confirmed it again in his book on the bombing war.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/#

>>2526012
>the crueler war is, the sooner it will be over.
There is literally no evidence whatsoever supporting this notion.

File: General-William-Sherman.jpg (50KB, 594x722px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 594x722px

>>2526022
When you make war genteel you perpetuate the suffering of soldiers to the benefit of the people who voted for war but couldn't be bothered to fight. You make war profitable and therefore make individual players or eager to wage it.

Now cruelty for the sake of cruelty can be counter-productive: Hitler's terror bombing of London over more strategic targets is the classic example. Not to mention railroading innocent Jews into ovens as not even remotely helping the war effort.

But the allies were bombing industrial yards and food production facilities and laser focusing on the thing which was making it possible for Germany to wage war in the first place. Sherman tanks were not built to take on Tigers and Panzers, they were designed to drive around them and shoot the vehicle bringing them fuel.

>>2524480
England wasn't a country during the war.

>>2524480
Who cares who did it first? Both were wrong. The RAF staff had plans to bomb civilians since 1924. Milch presented plans like that to Göring in May 1933. Both parties took the plans from Giulio Douhet's "Command of the Air" which was written in 1921.
Bombing civilians is a rather rude thing to do, no matter which criminal does it.

>>2525811
The Celtic dindu nuffin, they love being raped by muh ancestors, praise Odin

>>2526014
>AJP Taylor
>trusting a guy who wrote about ww2 without reading mein kempf
>trusting a guy who saw the hapsbourgs as nothing but the anti Christ
>trusting a guy whose mother was a proud slut
>trusting a member of the Labour Party

>>2525972
Sir I am going to have to arrest you for stealing my sides
>>2526008
>silly images
It's abstract but he had a reason before hand why it is like that besides 'fuck I need money better stick a toothbrush up my ass then flick my shit onto a canvas'