Talk:Bombing of Braunschweig (October 1944)

message: How is the publication of perished persons' names and a memorial service ("memorial act") an instrumental opportunity for total war? 
Even on the night of the attack, the National Socialists seized the opportunity to make the victims an instrument in their quest for total war, for already by the next day, 16 October, with Braunschweig still burning, the local Nazi propaganda newspaper, the Braunschweiger Tageszeitung, came out with the headline "Die teuflische Fratze des Gegners. Schwerer Terrorangriff auf Braunschweig – Volksgemeinschaft in der Bewährung" ("The foe's devilish antics. Heavy terror attack on Braunschweig – Population put to the test"), and Südhannover-Braunschweig Gauleiter Hartmann Lauterbacher's (1909-1988) pithy words of perseverance to "the Braunschweigers". On 19 October, the number of "fallen" was given as 405, and on 20 October appeared a full-page death notice with 344 names. On 22 October, one week after the disastrous attack, there was a "memorial act" for the victims, both at the State Cathedral ("Staatsdom") – as the Nazis called Braunschweig's cathedral – and at the Schlossplatz, the square in front of Braunschweig Palace.
Ksenon 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal opinion? 

message: Having read the article, I feel that it's rather subjective, being anti-bombing and attempting to invoke guilt or lay blame on the part of the attackers.  For example, the firestorm is written of as "no accident, but a deliberate, scientifically planned development".
I'm not quite sure what else the author expects...if you're going to send over hundreds of bombers, dropping thousands of tons of bombs, you are in the first place trying to cause terrible destruction.  What exactly is therefore so much worse about deliberately trying to maximize the damage you're attempting to cause?  for the implicit alternative is ridiculous; that one drops all these bombs but tries to cause the least harm possible!
In total war, the "civilian" population is engaged in war work - producing weapons.  If there is a rationale which says that only the soliders bearing those weapons should be attacked, while those producing the weapons should not, I have not heard its justification.
To quote Churchill from his memoirs, "if we used a bludgeon, it was for wont of a rapier".
The only way to fight a war is to strike as hard as possible, as often as possible, to lead to the shortest possible conflict.  The alternative, to draw ones blows, only lengthens the war and increases the risk of failure; and this failure here would be against a regieme in the very process of genocide.
Toby Douglass 10:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tone 

message: The destruction was so widespread and thorough that ordinary people and the experts alike, even years after the war, were convinced that the attack had come from one of the dread "thousand-bomber attacks", such as the one that had laid Cologne waste. The extent of the damage could seemingly not otherwise be explained. Only after the British opened their military archives did it become plain that it had been "only" 233 bombers.
:There's an explanation for the use of "only" 233 bombers here: 
:"As accuracy of bombing and marking improved, and bomb loads of all Main-Force aircraft reached the order of five tons or more, it was found that two hundred aircraft could do the damage previously expected of five hundred, and only the very largest enemy cities required the attention of our total strength" - Wing Commander Maurice A. Smith, DFC. 
:BTW, Smith later went on to become editor of the linked magazine Flight, edit the magazine The Autocar, and found the magazine Aeroplane Monthly. He had been the Master Bomber in the raid on Dresden in February 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of aircraft used 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bombing of Braunschweig (October 1944). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303234843/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/dec43.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bombing of Braunschweig (October 1944). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226224213/http://users.cybercity.dk/~nmb5433/missions1.html to http://users.cybercity.dk/~nmb5433/missions1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207084321/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary1941_3.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary1941_3.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http:/www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified