Switzerland was bombed repeatedly by the Allies, who always claimed it was a mistake. The worst of these bombings involved
How credible is this shit? To be off your target by 235 fucking kilometers? 50 bombers, and none of them noticed that they were completely off-course? I know it was 1940s technology, but come on.
en.wikipedia.org
Has any evidence ever come forth that these bombings were intentional?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
revisionist.net
twitter.com
The most likely cause. When Germans kicked the commies and Poles' teeth in to better prepare themselves, it was a cause for war. When Anglokikes preemptively strike people, it is always justified.
Of course, nobody was ever charged with a crime. In the Zurich bombing which happened the following year
there was a court-martial in England which of course found everyone involved innocent. IOW, the Allies themselves decide if they are guilty or not, the Swiss are given some money for damages and told to fuck off.
Agreed. This seems pretty incriminating. While the actual fatalities and damages are trivial in the bigger picture of WWII, it is also pretty damning if the Allies purposely targeted the civilians in a neutral European country just to instill fear in them.
A lot of people in the English-speaking world know of Operation Tannenbaum, which was Hitler's plan to invade Switzerland. It never happened, and the Germans mostly left the Swiss alone.
Hardly anyone knows about the Allies bombing Switzerland, repeatedly.
The winners are never charged with war crimes and always write history in their favor. This is not surprising.
Where the fuck have you been for all of human history?
There is probably some incriminating study on this, but it's unknown in the English-speaking world.
No, because it wasn't.
This is far from the only example of bombers going way off target during WW2. In an age with satellites, heat-seeking and laser targeting bombing the complete wrong city is unthinkable, but when you're being guided by radio beam (which the enemy is jamming to try and get you to miss your target) combined with just plain looking, trying to figure out by dead reckoning if you're maybe over the right blacked-out city, then you and your hastily-trained bomber crew flying in a prop plane over a mostly blacked-out continent while trying to dodge enemy aircraft and ground spotters can really fuck things up sometimes.
The Germans did exactly the same thing in 1941: they meant to bomb Belfast but hit neutral Dublin instead.
en.wikipedia.org
And of course, people alleged that was intentional too, perhaps the Germans were pissed that the Irish sent aid to Northern Ireland, etc etc. But the commander of the raid confirmed after the war that they made a mistake, that their radio guidance went wrong, maybe disrupted, they tried to fly dead reckoning and they bombed the wrong target. Nobody was tried and West Germany paid compensation.
This kinda mistake is perfectly reasonable if horrific, obviously a war crime but I don't doubt it was an accident. This kinda shit happened all the time before gps, and going off course occurs even now. Remember user, planes were still a very young industry, and aircraft navigation is a pain in the ass if there's any cloud cover at all. A single degree of turn at the onset is enough to end up in a different country.
revisionist.net
I don't know about the others, but it mentions that the bombing of Schaffhausen was during the day.
I wonder if the Germans had anything similar that could have misled the Allied bombers.
Speaking of the second world war, I thought of this: what if there are not one group but two groups of jews controlling us ? One is situated in Russia and the other one in the western world and Europe is their playground. Sometimes these two groups of jews cooperate, but they are mostly opposed to one another
When in Germany in 1933 a leader rose up that wanted to kick out bot the capitalist jewish group from the west ( the bankers ) and the communist jewish group from the east ( the communists ) both groups of yids decided to cooperate to push the head of fascism in so that they could continue to vye over their personal playground Europe. This is why England did not attack the soviet union after they invaded Poland, since the two jewish groups were busy killing of the National Socialists instead of fighting each other. Of course, the war between the two groups continued after the Second World War, eventually resulting in the formation of the Eastern and Western Bloc
Don't be naive, it was probably what said, besides, Switzerland was overall sympathetic with the 3rd Reich, they even had their own version of NSDAP until its leader was assassinated by a kike.
If missing your target by over 200 miles would really be considered normal, than that kind of shit would be happening all throughout ww2. Do you think US bombing of Serbian hospitals was also a mistake as they claim?
You are correct, it was Zionist kikes versus Bolshevik kikes. Even Churchill mentioned this in one of his articles.
Do you think a 1940s American can tell the difference between a Swiss city and a German one from 3 miles above it?
Considering they weren't delivering postal packages one would think they would at least know how to read a map. I don't think US air force was filled with so stupid people. It just serves as a poor excuse for terror bombing and nothing else.
It's not like this is the only time they did such thing. The same shit happened in Iraq and Serbia where civilan hospitals were bombed.
...
That's interesting, and obviously day bombing had a much better degree of accuracy, but it's still perfectly possible. Flying above the clouds for cover, having to navigate around danger areas, unfamiliarity with the landscape - shit adds up.
It's interesting that the rail line was hit, but the idea of a surgical strike in a neutral country doesn't hold water. Even day bombing was notoriously imprecise, thats why both sides often resorted to just hitting civilian housing - because the factory workers' homes are a much bigger target than the factory. And dead neutrals were a PR disaster, it wouldn't have been worth it.
They did, both sides devoted huge efforts to defeating the other's electronic targeting. And even the improved targeting systems available near the end of the war like SHORAN had major technical limitations even when not being interfered with.
Come on now.
You have a way to optimistic view of ww2 tech levels, this doesn't have anything to do with modern laser guided hospital bombings.
They had a compass, a map, and radio waves. Americans were inexperienced going in to the war, full of fresh recruits and new pilots using experimental equipment. I find it funny you think that its impossible that they'd make any error getting to the target but could also totally and conceivably fail to do damage to the facilities they would have wanted to bomb.
I never implied that and I don't know how can this refute my point. Bombing in 1999 was way more accurate then in 1944 and yet they still missed by many miles, coincidentally bombing civilian hospitals?
It's laughable to think it was a mistake, just like bombing hundreds of miles off target in 1944.
So what you're saying is that US air force was so dumb that they couldn't navigate for shit with a compass and a map that they managed to bomb 230 kilometers off target?
We're not talking about delivering free food or leaflets here and I don't think US military was so incompetent, especially as they were cooperating with the British.
Switzerland should've entered the war, froze all USA assets, activated total war measures and join their Germanic brothers.
Too bad something kept them from doing so.
From 3 miles above? No, but the height should give an added benefit of having a good overview of landmarks. Lakes, rivers, mountains.
No matter what, you have to see what you're bombing, at least in those early days. If you are just flying blind in the clouds, what could you actually be targeting? Just tiny little rectangles beneath you that are buildings?
Also,
The Swiss seemed to be really trying to avoid attacks.
I think his point was more that the United States government has an ugly track record with bombing "mistakes" and claiming it was just a miscalculation.
You and d6b5b6 make good points, but it's also a game of the miscreant who cries innocent. The United States and Britain have zero credibility. A lot of WWII history should be up for review, including this.
I'm saying they have a range of 3300 km's, is it hard to believe that wind blew them .01 degrees off course?
ITT Allies dindunoffin
oh fuck ignore that
alright here we go, 8.9 degrees off course for a double expected wind speed cross wind
Something else to consider. These aren't little Red Baron fighter planes, they are bombers.
So there was a pilot, a co-pilot, and a navigator!
This isn't a case of a pilot not being able to take a map out and look and check landmarks because he's flying the plane.
Look at all the glass on the B24.
Your comparison to 1999 makes no sense because the two are not alike. Missing in 1944 was extremely likely. You are underestimating the level of difficulty involved in those raids and the extremely basic level of air navigation available at the time.
The Axis did exactly the same shit, more than once, and received the same level of repercussions.
This.
Getting to your target, hitting it, and getting home was a complex task for any airforce from 1939-45.
The British conducted a secret report in late 1941 into their bombing campaign from 1939-1941. The report showed it was a complete disaster. Their bombers literally couldn't hit anything. Planes routinely dropped their bombs 5, 10, 20 miles off target.
The British came to the conclusion that the only thing they could hit was something so big that you couldn't miss it… a city.
They also came to the conclusion that you would also need to bomb a city with as many bombers as possible to make sure you hit it.
So that was the reason they ended up carrying out massive raids on Hamburg, Berlin, and Dresden etc.
They started this new strategy in the summer of 1942 with a 1,000 bomber raid on Cologne.
So, I want to expand on this for anyone reading, I figure 9 degrees is the maximum deviation the results could have been produced from. This is with a 100% horizontal crosswind. In reality the flight path they filed with the agency could very well have looked like this, which makes the problem look a whole lot more reasonable.
Without knowing which base they took off from and what direction the wind was going we have no empirical evidence for or against.
We're talking about releasing very heavy bombs above the target. What do you mean by a range of 3300 km? You mean a field of impact is 3300 square kilometers? That's ridiculous. Also, I'm not seeing the added mass of object in your simulation.
Look, I understand that bombing in ww2 was anything but accurate, it still isn't. And I would totally get a mistake of bombing a neighbouring city ~50 km off target, but 230 kilometers is way too much, especially considering different geographical landmarks and the fact that this was a military bombing operation.
I described more instances of US bombings where they used the same excuse. It's common knowledge US military has a long record of bombing "mistakes".
No, you're overestimating it. Chruchill's night raids and the majority of other bombings in WW2 were accurate as a rail gun in Quake 3 in comparison to this shit, we're talking up to 10 times bigger miss than average and a different country in the middle of a day.
the b24 liberator as per wikipedia had a range of 3300 km. So I took the liberty of making a guess as to how far it theoretically might have traveled.
Oh, well ok, Liberators having a range of 3300 km doesn't mean anything. You would need point A and B of considered flight path to be able to get an accurate deviation in the first place.
These were heavy bombers with navigational crew, I don't think all of them would make a mistake of hitting a city of a different country, 230 km off target.
These aren't missiles though, they're bombers with an active crew, including a navigator who has a huge greenhouse of glass to see things.
Right, the point is that there is no proof of anything which makes this pointless speculation thread. We aren't talking the USS liberty here, where in we have concrete proof of just about everything.
There are reasonable explanations that can't be proven or disproven and that's simply not good enough for me.
No it's actually proof that bombing power and air warfare basically didn't do shit.
Their only actual worth is as a terror weapon, destroying massive amount of homes and killing civilians by thousands.
German production roughly proceeded as unimpeded by air bombing (same as UK production when the German did it to them, sure it worked AT FIRST, with peace time industry, then they split the chains and reinforced them and tadaaa…), because most of the time the bombers missed THE TOWN they were aiming at. Let alone the target (which was bomb proof anyway)… When by pure blind luck they would hit the right place, repairs would typically done withing the next days.
In some instance they got so lost they missed the country, Switzerland ones are rather famous, they got some German incursion too, but it happened in France, Belgium, Netherlands too.
It's why the English developed SOE and SAS, because they realize that sending a couple of french with explosive, or a hundred commandos to fuck up dry docks, was way more effective than 30 or 120 B-24.
And which is why overreliance on airpower is a major flaw of the US (and NATO) doctrine.
CAS and rear lines assets attacks are the only real gain to warfare the air bring.
Oh, I agree, we don't have enough information to do anything but speculate. But, there might be some information hidden away somewhere that could be brought to light. Maybe some unknown Swiss did a paper on this decades ago demonstrating that the Allies were full of it. Or maybe it will prompt some Swiss or other interested parties to look into this more.
We have to at least start off with the fact that it is an open question, with what looks to be good arguments on both sides.
Kek, then why go out of your way to make those pointless triangles user? :^)
Anyway, it's true that there is no firm proof. But the Allies had motives for bombing it as already pointed out ITT together with a ridiculous claim that such a big miss of a supposed target was a mistake.
What I'm saying is that considering all of the circumstances, there is little chance it really was a mistake.
yall niggas postin in a slide thread
Considering what's on the top of the menu today, I don't really mind this thread sliding the rest of the garbage.
Never knew that shit happened. Damn
I'm OP, I moved to a different connection.
Fuck off with faggots like you who complain about every thread that is not on a topic discussed constantly.
I think hardly anybody does. Obviously Swiss will still remember it, and WWII buffs, but otherwise this is pretty much forgotten. Probably 10x more people know about Operation Tannenbaum, even though it was never implemented.
It's a minor affair in terms of casualties, but in any accounts including fictional ones of WWII, Switzerland plays a big role as a place of refuge for escaped prisoners and pilots. This gives a little more balance to the historical narrative, even if it turns out to be completely accidental.
Seems they did bomb the örlikon-bührle, AA gun manufacurer near Zürich. But that is an andecotal story, i could never find written references.
Reminder that Switzerland is not a Neutral Country, because its so awesome, independent and strong, but because its Mercenary Industry pissed off the other European Countries so much, they forced Switzerland to become Neutral after the Napoleonic Wars.
I think you mean the Yanks, because I don't recall reading of the RAF ever doing that.
user, the brits were part of the Allies
Were these the German speaking areas of Switzerland?
Yes.
The british and american air forces violated swiss airspace all the time.
And the british bombed this one for example.
Yeah sure
Do you think you can tell the difference between Austin and Denver?
And manufacturing plants, pure coincidence
Like the attacks against Norway, Sweden, Island Greenland, Persia?
Oh please not that canard. Precise enough to hit single ships and bunkers and it was 1944 with high resolution mapping radar available.
But they could hit precisely the crest of a dam.
Area bombardments were not that precise, they weren’t meant to be, still the targeting was very precise down to single buildings.
No the reason was to kill as many German civilians as possible. In one attack on Hamburg more than 10000 people were burned alive, while no attempt was made to bomb the harbour and ship building yards were dozens of U-boats were made ready.
They bombed Basel and Zürich in 1940, coincidently hitting a gear manufacturing plant and railway lines.
And the biggest AA gun manufacturer. But you only hear this story from very old people who worked there.