New RAF photos of Nazi death camps are revealed

[S'13]

Smoke over Auschwitz, landings in Normandy - unseen allied reconnaissance photos are revealed

John Ezard
Saturday January 17, 2004
The Guardian

For £10 you can view "as though in a time machine" a 3D photograph which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives had it been publicised when it was taken at 11am on August 23 1944, at a time when Hungarian Jews were being murdered below.
The photograph, taken by an RAF reconnaissance pilot and released yesterday, reveals what Auschwitz concentration camp looked like in its climactic frenzy of killing, during which at least 437,000 Hungarian Jewish men, women and children were added to the death toll.

It shows smoke billowing out of a mass burial pit.

At the time the Nazi authorities, knowing their defeat in the second world war was in sight, had ordered a steep increase in the tempo of extermination. Crematoriums were overwhelmed and temporary burial pits were fired. Those due to be taken to the gas ovens had to queue for a day in woodland near one crematorium, so the ashes of earlier victims fell on them as they waited. The resolution of the possibly unique aerial image is so good that inmates can be seen on roll call.

It was discovered only a year ago during the digitisation of 5m reconnaissance photographs in the aerial reconnaissance archive at Keele University, part of the Kew-based National Archives.

All the images will be posted from Monday at evidenceincamera.co.uk. Among them are photos of the D-day landings, allied bomb devastation in the German city of Cologne and the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck.

Yesterday Allan Williams, the reconnaissance archive's head of digitisation, said the Auschwitz image was "extremely moving. To the best of my knowledge, my colleagues and others around the world, there are no other reconnaissance pictures of Auschwitz from that time. To our knowledge, they have not been published anywhere."

The British public knew little about the death camps and liberating them was not an allied war priority. Gassings continued at Auschwitz for five months after the picture was taken. The camp was not liberated and the extent of atrocities not disclosed until January 27 1945. The first traumatic newsreels of the camps, were screened later that year.

The significance of the Auschwitz image appears to have been missed because technology had outstripped its operators. The RAF's photographers fired their cameras as fast as machine guns, bringing home millions of images - too many to inspect properly. "It is a fascinating issue as to why the photo operators did not know what was going on," Mr Williams said. "I think the answer is that their orders were to look single-mindedly for military data. They did not have time to think what else was happening."

[Falco]

It would be interesting to see those images

[MolliG]

BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_the_war_from_the_air/img/4.jpg

Auschwitz
The most moving image in the archives is a recently discovered picture of the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz.

The smoke on the left-hand side of the picture is being produced by the mass burning of bodies in funeral pits.

During the war's closing stages the camp's crematoriums were unable to burn all the people murdered by the Nazis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_the_war_from_the_air/img/5.jpg

Roll call
This is another picture of Auschwitz. Prisoners lining up for roll call can be seen in the photograph's centre.

The website, which is launched today (I think), is - www.evidenceincamera.co.uk . Seems to be down at the mo'.

More pictures from the BBC (www.bbc.co.uk)'s preview...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_the_war_from_the_air/img/1.jpg

D-Day
From Monday, the public will be able to explore images of World War II taken from the air.

Pictures such as this pilot's eye view of the Normandy landings will be available online as the Aerial Reconnaissance Archives makes its massive collection of photographs searchable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_the_war_from_the_air/img/2.jpg

Pegasus Bridge
The aftermath of some of D-Day's first fighting is shown here. British airborne troops took Pegasus bridge in a daring raid on the German defences.

If the mission had failed it could have thrown the D-Day landings off course. British gliders used in the attack can be seen on the right of the picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_the_war_from_the_air/img/3.jpg

The Normandy beaches
The aerial photographers were capable of capturing very detailed images, as this shot of landing craft at the Normandy beachhead shows.

In the weeks up to the landings, aerial images were used to provide the Allies with knowledge of the terrain they were preparing to assault.

Director Steven Spielberg also used them while making Band of Brothers.

[Mr. Nielsen]

It should be very exciting to have look when the site comes online.

But the pictures doesn't seem to have been kept secret before, just not readily available.

The pictures from Auschwitz for instance has already been made public.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/holocaust.htm

[juhae]

Of course, all the holocaust-revisionist boneheads claim these photographs of Auschwitz to be faked, in case they provide some proof that people actually were massmurdered in the camps.

But, they're a completely lost case anyway.

[Skaman]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/auschwitz19-4_1.jpg


My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war. He now works for the correlated business and mega German Conglomerate Bayer.

[Roger Rabbit]

My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war.
I'm guessing by your age that your dad did not actually work for this company during the war.

[Kitsune]

Jews were killed with Zyklon B, wich is a pesticide. Just because IG Farben produced it, that does not mean that everyone knew of the Holocaust.
For example the Holocaust recordkeeping was done with the help of accounting machines produced by IBM. Does this mean IBM knew it? (In fact, the involvement of quite a few of American companies with the 3.Reich is quite extensive...among them IBM, Ford, General Motors and many more...they all did open business with Nazi Germany until the war started. The Nazis anti-semitism obviously wasn't a problem).

But the Auschwitz photo proves that the Allied leadership knew quite a lot of the Holocaust, much more than most normal Germans...but nonetheless ending it or freeing the camps was never an allied priority. Hmmmm. On the other hand they had better things to do, fighting a war for example. Yeah, nice excuse. And so original. That one was used by many Germans, too.

Funny, I always get in a cynical mood when I discuss the Holocaust. Why is that?

[George W. Bush]

FDR was a Jew hater! That's it! rofl

[pAt]

Jews were killed with Zyklon B, wich is a pesticide. Just because IG Farben produced it, that does not mean that everyone knew of the Holocaust.
For example the Holocaust recordkeeping was done with the help of accounting machines produced by IBM. Does this mean IBM knew it? (In fact, the involvement of quite a few of American companies with the 3.Reich is quite extensive...among them IBM, Ford, General Motors and many more...they all did open business with Nazi Germany until the war started. The Nazis anti-semitism obviously wasn't a problem).

But the Auschwitz photo proves that the Allied leadership knew quite a lot of the Holocaust, much more than most normal Germans...but nonetheless ending it or freeing the camps was never an allied priority. Hmmmm. On the other hand they had better things to do, fighting a war for example. Yeah, nice excuse. And so original. That one was used by many Germans, too.

Funny, I always get in a cynical mood when I discuss the Holocaust. Why is that?

ya but going to those camps wasnt easy they had to get around the German front lines first right?!

[Mr. Nielsen]

The idea would have been to bomb the rail lines going to the camp.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Jews were killed with Zyklon B, wich is a pesticide. Just because IG Farben produced it, that does not mean that everyone knew of the Holocaust.

That's true. But many obviously did, such as the civilians who designed, built, and maintained the showers that dispensed gas. The showers were designed to be used by humans, not bugs.


For example the Holocaust recordkeeping was done with the help of accounting machines produced by IBM. Does this mean IBM knew it? (In fact, the involvement of quite a few of American companies with the 3.Reich is quite extensive...among them IBM, Ford, General Motors and many more...they all did open business with Nazi Germany until the war started. The Nazis anti-semitism obviously wasn't a problem).

Also true (Henry Ford was a huge anti-Semite)...but there's a long way from being a racist to supporting genocide. People have the right to think what they want - it's action that's potentially immoral.


But the Auschwitz photo proves that the Allied leadership knew quite a lot of the Holocaust, much more than most normal Germans...but nonetheless ending it or freeing the camps was never an allied priority.

It doesn't prove that at all. In fact, as the article says, there were millions of these photos taken & nobody knows if anybody took the time to analyze these. I mean, with the advantage of hindsight, it's easy to tell what the camp is for. But if I were an analyst looking at this, I may conclude it was just a work camp - factory etc. Hard to say what the Allies knew or didn't know, but these photos don't prove anything.


Hmmmm. On the other hand they had better things to do, fighting a war for example. Yeah, nice excuse. And so original. That one was used by many Germans, too.

Are you saying that ignorance of an atrocity is the same as committing one? If I were commanding men in battle, with thousands of my countrymen dieing every day, I'd also concentrate on destroying military infrastructure first. These camps were well within German territory and very well defended. What else could be done? Para drop a bunch of guys behind enemy lines to attack an unidentified camp? That's a suicide mission. Or bomb it & kill everybody there? Militarily, they are insignificant & I believe that's why they were not closely scrutinized by battle staff.

[Kitsune]

The point is, whatever would have been a good idea to save as many jewish (among others) lifes, wasn't discussed in the first place. It just never came up.

[volfram]

It doesn't prove that at all. In fact, as the article says, there were millions of these photos taken & nobody knows if anybody took the time to analyze these. I mean, with the advantage of hindsight, it's easy to tell what the camp is for. But if I were an analyst looking at this, I may conclude it was just a work camp - factory etc. Hard to say what the Allies knew or didn't know, but these photos don't prove anything.

Photos dosnt prove that alies know about holocoust but they they in fact know a lot much earlier.Here one link
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/karski.html
I think they have also information from other sources like inteligence.

[Andyman]

No offence Kitsune but what you seem to believe the Allies should have accomplished does seem like a bit much. As a few people have already said earlier positive identification of the camps would be difficult I mean look at the photos pretend you have absolutely no historical memory and tell me what they look like. It is unfortunate that the allies knew and heard about the death camps, however many figured those stories were some sort of anti-nazi rubbish created to instill more western hatred towards Germany. It's unfortunate but the camps were definately not a military priority for many reasons: (1.) They were deep into enemy territory (2.) The Allies weren't even positive of what events actually went on inside the camps cause many other people who were not in some way directly involved with the camps were quite unsure also (3.) Someone also posted something about the local Germans and how they definately knew what was happening, well I don't understand what a small civilian populace could do against a well defended military compound (4.) The camps also used Jews mainly for any work that needed to be done, remember Saudorcommandos and all the horrible **** they had to do (5.) watch the movie "The Grey Zone" it talks all about the Saudocommandos and what they had to do (6.) The Nazis did a pretty good job a keeping thigs ambiguous from the public and surrounding nations cause yes even they didnt want anyone to know.

just my $0.02

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It doesn't prove that at all. In fact, as the article says, there were millions of these photos taken & nobody knows if anybody took the time to analyze these. I mean, with the advantage of hindsight, it's easy to tell what the camp is for. But if I were an analyst looking at this, I may conclude it was just a work camp - factory etc. Hard to say what the Allies knew or didn't know, but these photos don't prove anything.

Photos dosnt prove that alies know about holocoust but they they in fact know a lot much earlier.Here one link
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/karski.html
I think they have also information from other sources like inteligence.

Very interesting article and one I read with much interest. It raises many questions, as I've always wondered who knew what and when.

But I must say that it did not convince me of much. If the Allies knew of these camps, of what the Nazis were doing - why not make it known to the world? Even if they would not change their military strategy, would it not have helped their cause to publish the existance of the "final solution"? It would have been a useful tool - even if they did nothing. They could have broadcast it to the world - that the entire German nation was complicit in this genocide (I don't mean to imply that every German knew - but stating that could have stirred unrest in Germany). Surely this would have been to the Axis' advantage in some way. The propaganda value alone would have been tremendous. Maybe a better question is - why not announce it? Is the implication then that the Axis was glad that it was happening?

The article did say that Karski was a spy - maybe this contributed to why he was not believed. Felix Frankfurter (a Jew, and future US Supreme Court judge) said that he simply didn't believe the man. Karski never told Roosevelt of his personal visit to a camp...only 3rd hand information. It was a terrible time for Europe's population and I'm certain that many groups were demanding help. Without credible evidence the decision makers were focusing on winning the war the quickest way they knew how.

I maintain that this information was not ignored, or purposefully rejected, it was simply not believed.

[StarvingStudent47]

I am frustrated with the Allied governments, but that's because they refused to shelter Jewish refugees during the 1930s. They deported them back to Germany. Millions of lives could have been saved if they had allowed (or even encouraged) Jewish refugees to flee and settle in USA/Britain/etc.

However, once the war was going full-tilt, I understand the actions of Allied governments. 1944 and 1945 weren't exactly cake walks, and I understand why all available resources were aimed at the Nazi War Machine instead of stopping the death camps. I'm not going to say I'm thrilled by the decision or that I would have made the same decision myself, but I understand why they did make that decision.

[Kitsune]

In fact, this discussion is a bit older. In the eighties the secrecy about "Ultra" fell...and it became clear that the Allies knew a lot more than everyone thought possible. As far as I have understood it was primarly "Ultra" (not this RAF photo) because of which Allied leadership knew about the Holocaust. And even back then there was the discussion why freeing the camps had exactly NO priority at all. Of course there were problems. For example why not tell everyone what is happening? Because, frankly it sounds unbelievable. The German population would have dissmissed it as wild exaggerations and enemy propaganda. The Allied population would have demanded proof...which could have let to the exposure of "Ultra". Some bombings of railways would have been a way...but only to pertub the Holocaust-machine a bit. The invasion troops could have been subtly steered to free the camps a few days, a few weeks earlier...i do not think that much more would have been possible. But every day would have saved thousands of lives.
But nothing was done.

I am interested in this because of two reasons:
1) From time to time there comes another smug historian (Often American ones by the way) who has found out that "all Germans are guilty". They just did not know because they did not want to. But it seems that the Allied High command behaved not entirely different...the Holocaust was no problem for Britain, the USA or the Soviet Union (allegedly Stalin knew nothing about Ultra...and if he had he would not have cared...he hated Jews), so there was no reason to care. If that is true it does not mean that Germans are less guilty, but it does mean that they are not a different breed of human (as many Anglo-Saxon theorists have proposed after the war).
2)The British/American conduct of this war is among the cruelest ever. Not number one, historically, but certainly among the top five. The British strategy (later joined by the Americans) was to systematically eradicate German cities, killing as much of the civilian population as possible, maiming as much of the survivors as possible, making homeless as much as possible, hoping for food, water and medical support to collapse...essentially making war against women and children. Not that the Germans didn't do similar things. For example when the SS went into a village, shot all who resisted, put women and children in the church and burning it down. And thats the point: IT IS SIMILAR. Or do you see a difference? Well there is one: The German SS troopers became hunted war criminals after the WWII (which is as it should be), British and American Pilots as well as the inventors and strategists of this campaign became heroes (and that is not as it should be). Why? Because of the Holocaust. Thats the best excuse the Western Allies could have. (While the highest echelons of allied leadership knew about it, the bomber pilots didn't. "Ultra" was the biggest secret of all...) But with the horrible pictures of bulldozers dozing heaps of corpses in Bergen-Belsen the whole point never came up. Anything to defeat Germany seemed now to be alright, even to kill deliberatly hundreds of thousands of women and children...even after it became clear that this did not speed up the war in any way...ups...sry.

This is not about reparation or something. I know, if Germany had to pay for its crimes while receiving money for those committed on Germans we probably would loose a great deal. Its about the truth. Before the war many Germans belived to be better than other people...after the war we became subhumans. The most evil people in the world according to some. Or a people gullible enough to be duped by a Charlie Chaplin look-a-like and mendacious enough only to face the truth when utterly conquered. Totally different from Anglo-Saxons, French...even the Soviets (Stalin may be a bit ruthless now and then but he is no Hitler, right?). Talking about mendacity...isn't it the truth that many Germans stayed Nazis after the war, simply hiding it. And played dump when it came to punishing war criminals? Typical German. (Both is not entirely false, it is quite hard for a whole nation to make a mental U-Turn).
But I get the impression that the Allies weren't exactly eager to tackle their own guilt. There is probably NO ONE in Britain, who would call Churchill a war criminal. NO American would dare to think the thought that FDR could be one. But there is this bombing campaign targeting civilians...and this is neither excused nor mitigated by what the Germans did. A crime is a crime.
The question what they knew about the German Holocaust and what they did (~nothing) is another such point.

Ok, this is ranting I know. But since I as a German, while talking to foreigners, am destined to be accused/reminded of the deeds done during those 12 dark years of German history on a nearly daily basis, let alone the bazillion of Hollywood movies depicting the battle between darkness and the light, or have to face the comparisions of todays politics with that time "We had to attack Saddam...don't you remember Hitler?" :roll: I am interested in it.
And the more I am into it the more I find that it wasn't white against black back then...it was a lighter shade of grey vs a darker one. And if one mixes the Soviet grey to the Western Allied one...the difference is not that great at all anymore.

[usa320]

My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war

My grandfather worked for this company that dropped ordanance on jackasses like your father.

Your father didnt kill jews, your just being the anti-social, mad at the world 16 year old prick that you are. Hopefully when you grow up and realize the world doesnt revolve around you and killing jews, you wont be so jaded. Jackass.

[Skaman]

My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war

My grandfather worked for this company that dropped ordanance on jackasses like your father.

Your father didnt kill jews, your just being the anti-social, made at the world 16 year old prick that you are.


Ok, I am missing something.... I merely added some info I thought interesting as my father worked for that company known as Bayer, and prior known as I.G Farben. Please refrain from calling my father a jackass. The company did not kill Jews; rather it produced chemicals which were in-turn used for such atrocities. Trying to draw me into an argument?

[EvanL]

My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war

My grandfather worked for this company that dropped ordanance on jackasses like your father.

Your father didnt kill jews, your just being the anti-social, mad at the world 16 year old prick that you are. Hopefully when you grow up and realize the world doesnt revolve around you and killing jews, you wont be so jaded. Jackass.
USA320 you talk alot of **** for someone who has never defended their country. Why get so offensive when he was only stating something?
Calling him anti-social is a bit ironic when your 30yrs old and spend most of your time on this website conversing with teenagers. Get a life.

[venture160]

there's really no sense in reliving rivalries that ended 40 years ago guys

[usa320]

USA320 you talk alot of **** for someone who has never defended their country

stfu. i dont feel like wasting time to find the picture of the guy serving up a cup of stfu.


Calling him anti-social is a bit ironic when your 30yrs old and spend most of your time on this website conversing with teenagers. Get a life.

Im 23, and i spend maybe about an hour a day cumulatively on the internet. Most my time is spent at work, and with my girlfriend or friends.

I have a life, but unlike some, i choose to keep it that way, MY life.

[EvanL]

USA320 you talk alot of **** for someone who has never defended their country

stfu. i dont feel like wasting time to find the picture of the guy serving up a cup of stfu.


Calling him anti-social is a bit ironic when your 30yrs old and spend most of your time on this website conversing with teenagers. Get a life.

Im 23, and i spend maybe about an hour a day cumulatively on the internet. Most my time is spent at work, and with my girlfriend or friends.

I have a life, but unlike some, i choose to keep it that way, MY life.
Ohh yeh your friends, how could i forget?
http://www.sufferingsappho.com/wrap/collectibles/lunchbox.jpg

[oakes]

From time to time there comes another smug historian (Often American ones by the way) who has found out that "all Germans are guilty".

I have rarely ever heard this claim made in any academic forum, especially by any respectable historian. Just because we know in hind-sight that the Nazis were doing such horrible things does not denote that we believe that all the Germans in those days were evil. It is a fact, however, that much of the German population was largely anti-semitic.



The British strategy (later joined by the Americans) was to systematically eradicate German cities, killing as much of the civilian population as possible, maiming as much of the survivors as possible, making homeless as much as possible, hoping for food, water and medical support to collapse...essentially making war against women and children.

Come again? Although Allied bombs and ordinance DID incur many civilian casualties, it was never the intent of the Allied Forces to "make war on women and children". The way to take a city was to destroy key military infrastructure and as a result, much collateral damage was caused, but it's outrageous to equate what Nazi SS and military did to civilians. I don't know where you read your history.

[Skaman]

USA320 you talk alot of **** for someone who has never defended their country

stfu. i dont feel like wasting time to find the picture of the guy serving up a cup of stfu.


Calling him anti-social is a bit ironic when your 30yrs old and spend most of your time on this website conversing with teenagers. Get a life.

Im 23, and i spend maybe about an hour a day cumulatively on the internet. Most my time is spent at work, and with my girlfriend or friends.

I have a life, but unlike some, i choose to keep it that way, MY life.


Yet, he posts [1.42% of total / 7.59 posts per day]

Joined: 26 Jun 2003 , after myself.... which was 29 May 2003 with only [0.87% of total / 4.08 posts per day]

Has 4 stars and today posted a total of 22 times over the duration of 4:09 pm-to 12:02 am. And nontheless posted a total of 11 times from 11:22 to 12:02

Yet he only spends 1 hour IN TOTAL on the THE ENTIRE net......

You arent fooling anyone; and by the way, my dad is not a jacksass, yet I know someone who is...

[StarvingStudent47]

My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war.

1) Why on earth are you telling us this?

2) Why on earth are you defending your father's actions that furthered the Holocaust? You sound PROUD of it.

[Skaman]

My father worked for this company that produced chemicals for eradicating the Jewish prisoners during the war.

1) Why on earth are you telling us this?

2) Why on earth are you defending your father's actions that furthered the Holocaust? You sound PROUD of it.


My father war born 1945. Just adding some interesting information regarding I.G. Farben.

[juhae]

Come again? Although Allied bombs and ordinance DID incur many civilian casualties, it was never the intent of the Allied Forces to "make war on women and children".
I hate to "beat the dead horse", but I feel like I should remind of the bombing of Dresden and the atrocities conducted by the Red Army (which were quietly accepted by the officers, and even encouraged by the party.)

However, to avoid unnecessary conflict and strife, I also must point out that civilian casualties weren't the number one priority with the Allied (atleast when it comes to the western Allies), but there were cases of "slight overbombings."

[oakes]

I hate to "beat the dead horse", but I feel like I should remind of the bombing of Dresden and the atrocities conducted by the Red Army (which were quietly accepted by the officers, and even encouraged by the party.)


I should reiterate, then. I mean to defend the western Allies, i.e. USA, Great Britain, etc... I think we all know how the Russians thought about civilian casualties and collateral damage, especially since they were betrayed by the Germans. Also, if what they did to their OWN people is any indication, than I would not disagree, in this case.


However, to avoid unnecessary conflict and strife, I also must point out that civilian casualties weren't the number one priority with the Allied (atleast when it comes to the western Allies), but there were cases of "slight overbombings."

My point is that whether or not there was a great emphasis on preventing collateral damage like there is today, it is very unfair to equate it with the monstrous things that the Nazis did to the populaces of the countries they occupied.

[usa320]

Why on earth are you defending your father's actions that furthered the Holocaust? You sound PROUD of it

Because the misguided kid IS prroud of that.

Thats something one would usually keep quiet.

[Skaman]

Why on earth are you defending your father's actions that furthered the Holocaust? You sound PROUD of it

Because the misguided kid IS prroud of that.

Thats something one would usually keep quiet.


Where did I say my father commited such actions during the holocaust, and where did I defend this outlandish claim???

[Kitsune]

Ok. I first wanted to sent only a pm but i decided to post this. Its an Add to my earlier post. It is inteded to all those who, like oakes, think that German civilian casualties during the allied bombing campaign were just "collateral damage".

There were some doubts about Allied strategic bombing and wether it really targeted civilian population.

It did. This is not some crap I invented. It is the truth and if you do some research you will find that this is not even debated.

The idea of Strategic Bombing was developed in the 20ties by some Italian military expert. The British adopted it in the early thirties (before the war started) and applied it to their German adversary in WWII. The idea of strategic bombing is to eradicate city after city, causing as much damage as possible, killing as much civilians as possible, destroying as much homes as possible, destroying the supply of food, water, medical stuff...as much as possible. The result (this all was worked by British experts) should be such an enourmus ammount of suffering, (people killed, homeless, starving, unburied corpses leading to disease etc.) that it results in insurrection, the toppling of the Nazi regime and finally in the end of the war.
British intelligence had made a list of all German cities, assessed parameters like population, industry (not only military important one), "burnability" (it's true) and stuff. The bombing war was about destroying one city after another until the war ended. Now of course they still attacked targets which were only of military importance. But again...this was not the whole point of Strategic Bombing. The point was to target everyone. Cities like Lübeck or Dresden (among others) had nearly no military industry. (Lübeck had a high "burnability" parameter, because of its many wooden buildings).
To optimize destruction, a special mix of explosive bombs, phosphor torches and time bombs were used. The main killer were the phosphor torches...each one quite harmless (one can pick it up, it doesn't heard if you take the right end). But hundreds of thousands were used to start thousands of fires, resulting in the burning down of whole cities. In Hamburg a special firestorm effect could be seen for the first time. Later missions tried to create Firestorms deliberatly (with success in Dresden, without success in Berlin, here there were to many broad streets so that the burnings could not combine very well).
The British even thought about using Mustard Gas to eradicate the population (I think Chruchill himself proposed it, but I could be wrong. Any way he knew about the idea). It was not done because experts came to the conclusion that the used mixture of bombs, torches, time bombs was more effective than Mustard Gas (which isn't very effective...Side Note: the only gas who would have been effective was the German Tabun, which is much deadlier than Mustard Gas. Nonetheless the Nazis never used it, even during the Blitz against London. Why is still a mystery to me. Possibly Hitler did not take the British serious enough...).
The Americans indeed targeted military objects only at first. But they joined the British strategy to tatrget the civilian population after a while. British and Amercan bombing tactics did differ however. For example the British preffered night attacks, Americans rather attacked during daylight.

This is just to inform you about the Western allied bombings. It resulted in more than 500.000 German civilian casualties. And they were not "collateral damage". Times have changed indeed: The Allies tried to kill German civilians, the Germans tried to protect there own. Today the American Air Force tries to prevent the killing of civilians whereas the enemy tries to position his headquartes in such a way that as much innocents are killed as possible. :roll:


But again: I did not make this up! Anyone who does not believe it do some research. It is the truth !

[SFontaine]

As much as I hate to defend Douchey he's saying that his father worked for a company that in the past produced those things.. He wasn't working for the company at the time.. He was just pointing out something.