Talk:Rotterdam Blitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotterdam Blitz article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Kesselring: The command situation

Kesselring's attitude to bombing was at this stage, not as clear as is implied here. The bombing of Rotterdam happended in May. The development of the Battle of Britain into bombing London began to materialize in the following September. Battle of Britain#Raids on London (RJP 09:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


[edit] terror bombardment

Since when is an air raid on a fortress a terror bombardment? The front lines were running through Rotterdam, the dutch garrison wanted to defend the city, so it was a legitimate target. Markus Becker02 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The German intend was to frighten the Dutch civilians, also the bombing itself was called off by flares (illegitimate target) and the bulk of the German pilots still chose to bomb the city.
Rex 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is wrong. As I already pointed out the presence of Dutch military units made the city a legitimate target and the reluctance to surrender was the reason why the air strike was called. When the Dutch surrendered the air strike was called off, but because of poor communications the message did not reach the airbases base. When the bombers reached Rotterdam they were given signals by the ground troops not to attack –this alone disproves all claims of a terror bombing- but only half of the planes saw the signals in time. So the allegation of a terror bombardment is unfounded. edit: See also Terror bombing, International law in 1945 Markus Becker02 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That may the German perception, but not the Dutch one. Also note that the bombers attacked the cities heart, where no (mentionable) defences were present. Rex 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Markus Becker02, please do not try to make German warcrimes seem less bad. The bombing of rotterdam was a terror bombing and more cities would follow. Don't you ask yourself why the German military attacked a bridge with heavy bombers (and bomb the city heart instead)? Rex 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1907 Hague convention clearly says it was not. It does not say a word about what kind of bomber is and what kind is not prmitted. Therefore you should not remove information from this article that helps others to come to a conclusion, just because you don´t like it. Markus Becker02 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


From Dutch wikipedia;

Kampfgeschwader 54 was called away from the Belgian front to be deployed in the Netherlands, this was a unit of heavy bombers, not Stukas necessary for a tactical breakthrough. Hitlers goal wasn't a breakthrough over the willemsbrug but the capitulation of the Netherlands. If the Netherlands wouldn't capitulate Utrecht, The Hague, Amsterdam, Haarlem and other large cities will also be bombed. The German defensive arguments supported by International law saying that Rotterdam was a defended city is worthless given that the bombing was a part of a much larger plan

Rex 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What was planned for other dutch cities that were not defended does not change the fact that Rotterdam was defended and if a city was defended contemporary law allowed air strikes. I think it´s best to put in a reference to these rules and let the readers make up their own minds.Markus Becker02 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Markus Becker02, please do not try to make German warcrimes seem less bad. The bombing of rotterdam was a terror bombing and more cities would follow. Don't you ask yourself why the German military attacked a bridge with 90 heavy bombers (and bomb the city heart instead)? Rex 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1907 Hague convention clearly says it was not. It does not say a word about what kind of bomber is and what kind is not prmitted. Therefore you should not remove information from this article that helps others to come to a conclusion, just because you don´t like it. Markus Becker02 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter, this was terror bombing, in fact it was part of a whole plan of terror bombing. Rex 18:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is your opinon, but wikipedia is supposed to be about providing information. And so far you have not come up with any information to support your point of view. But you keep on deleting any information you don´t appreciate. Markus Becker02 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to lecture me on how wikipedia works, I've been here for quite some time. I have come have provide much information, this is a good one, you however did not, what have you got to strenghten your view besides a reference to a 1907 treaty (as if Nazi Germany complied with any treaty) which was proven to be false? Rex 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your general remarks about Nazi Germany usually not complying with treaties are generally correct, but in this specific case meaningless. I suggest you take a look at wikipedia´s own definition of a terror bombing (International law in 1945). By the way, some of the information you have deleted is not even disputed by the Dutch government http://www.holland.com/oorlogssporen/gb/index.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not have an own definition. Also the link you've provided doesn't even mention the bombing of rotterdam. Rex 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the article "terror bombing" and go to "International law in 1945"! As far as the other link is concerned, go to Military Operations > 1940: Germans occupy Holland. That´s what you get: http://www.holland.com/oorlogssporen/gb/index.html?page=http://www.holland.com/oorlogssporen/gb/operations/1940.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

I've taken a look and I qoute; "Rotterdam was to be destroyed if the troops did not surrender." 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And did you also see this: "Panicking, Schmidt ordered red flares to be let off to indicate surrender. It was too late. One squadron could abort its attack in time, but the planes approaching from the east dropped their bombs on the City." Does it remind you of something?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

Yes, excuses. Just because some German commander tried to stop the terror bombing doesn't mean it wasn't one. Rex 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That allegation still unproven, but it shows nicely how you treat information you don´t like. You know what? An edit war is below my standard. You may keep your article free from politically uncorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

Maybe there's our difference. You prefer politically correct information while I prefer the truth. Rex 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotterdam Blitz

I am moving this article because:

  • It is specifically about the German bombing of the City and does not include the Allied bombing of the city, the first raid by the RAF took place only days after the surrender of the Netherlands
  • Most of the article on this subject are either under "Xyz Blitz" or "Bombing of Xyz in World War II".
    • Without this qualifier many cites have been bombarded at other times and so those bombardments might end up in this article.
    • It makes it easier to search for articles if they have similar names.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire line

  • The image caption for the memorial pic reads, "Lights along the fire line memorialize the bombing of Rotterdam". What exactly is a "fire line"? We don't seem to have an article about it. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the image depicts an event commemorating the Rotterdam Blitz. Shouldn't this event have its own 'chapter' in this article, or even its own article? (Howcheng-I put an asterix before your comment. hope you don;t mind;)) Mkruijff (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The fire line is a line trough the city that marks the borders of the main fire(s) caused by the bombing. 193.172.64.170 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I came here to query this very thing. An explanation of a fire line, and perhaps a detailed explanation of the picture would be very helpful. The lights in the image appear to be suspended in the air - are they attached to balloons or something? On hills? Gantries?
Interesting photo, but it really needs supporting text. 82.20.38.98 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)