Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II

Portsmouth?

Is the list at the foot of the page supposed to include all cities that suffered serious bombing? If so it should include Portsmouth, England. 68.44.187.12 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Airmen lost on strategic combat missions

There was a phrase in the intro that said 100,000 airmen lost their lives. It seemed to apply to the US strategic bombing of Japan, where only 414 B-29s and US 80 fighters were lost on combat missions; a maximum of 4634 possible airmen dead. Some airmen survived the loss of their aircraft, and many B-29s went to Japan with less than 11 men on board. Binksternet 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See the reference, it is a book about Bomber Harris so it is likely to be total losses or total losses in the European theatre. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Overy in Bomber Command (page 204) reports 57,582 RAF Bomber Command airman deaths during WWII, some 72.7% of total casualties (79,172) within that organization. I'll try to find death totals for each country that performed offensive strategic bombing missions but the 100,000 number in the article seems at this point likely to be a worldwide total of either all Allied deaths or combined Allied plus the lesser number of Axis airman deaths over England and China. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, PBS. 100-160k Allied airmen in ETO alone is higher than I had expected. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources that cite 160,000. A Google search on [160,000 casualties strategic bombing Germany] returns a number of other reliable sources. One of which is "On the History of Man-made Destruction: Loss, Death, Memory, and ..." which is a pay per view article, but Google peek inside and quotes "A high figure of nearly 160000 total British and American losses appears in the ‘United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (European War)" And with that lead I looked in the report and found this sentence "The number of men lost in air action was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. [Note: All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative.] More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair."[1]

The two numbers added together come to 158,546 which is probably where the figure of 160,000 comes from in the two sources I have quoted. But as the Note notes "All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative." then if Overy is correct we should reduce the RAF figure from 79,281 --which appears to be total casualties within the RAF -- to Bomber Command airman deaths during WWII 57,582, then we end up with 79,265 and 57,582 RAF Bomber Command which is 136,847. So I guess we need to put in a range footnote this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians

The numbers include non-German forced workers. Xx236 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Amsterdam draft international rules"

"The British government ordered the RAF to adhere strictly to the Amsterdam draft international rules " -- Could a link to additional info on this please be added to the article? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

image usage

This article currently contains an animated gif entitled AlliedOfensiveInGermany.gif. This image is not suitable to the article as it shows tactical engagement rather than strategic and therefore is not relevant to the article. If there are no objections then i will go ahead and delete it. Deckchair (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Google search URLs for references

I just deleted a bunch of google searches that had been used in place of book titles. The books need to be cited without a search URL. Template: Cite book has more information. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam Tooze

Are there any plans to incorporate his findings?Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I fought the law

Adding this section (since it seems to me some mention is appropriate), I wonder if the Hague Cons ever defined what a military target was, & if weapons factories were included. I also wonder if there should also be broader examination of the legal/moral issues, raised in part here. Thoughts? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question please read Aerial area bombardment and international law, it explains the law and lack of law in detail. If you wish to look up more then the internal and external links are provided there.

BTW there is a hidden comment comment in the Marshall inquiry in the bombing of Dresden article after the sentence "The inquiry concluded that by the presence of active German military units nearby, and the presence of fighters and anti-aircraft within an effective range, Dresden qualified as 'defended'." which is Probably for compliance with the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938. Art 2. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/910f79361f226492c125641e004057ed?OpenDocument . I put it in that way because I have no conclusive evidence that was the reason that the Marshal inquiry included it, but it seems too much of a coincidence and it makes sense to leave it as a hidden comment in case some one is tempted to remove the sentence as not relevant.

In answer to including a broader examination: No. One if we go that way then every military article may as well have a moral and legal section.

Isn't war horrible? Yes it is but sometimes there is no other option and war is legal. Well only some actions are, what about Drogheda? Drogheda was carried out under the laws of war as they were at that time. Perhaps but x says it was a war crime and y says it was a moral crime and what about Fallujah? ... .

I personally am for deleting from this article the section "Legal considerations" that you have cut and pasted from the Bombing of Dresden in World War II. -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Isn't war horrible" That is about the weakest argument against I've seen. How many people coming here have heard about the prohibitions of the Hague Cons & know even less than either of us? Hell, I've been reading in this area for years, & I've never seen a complete text of them. Are we to leave people completely at the mercy of historiographers with axes to grind? Or completely in the dark? Deal with the OT junk as it arises.

Of course, there's always the option of highlighting the OT or conflicting POV, as is being done (it seems) here, when an attempt (mine, note) to achieve a less-legalistic approach failed... I have small hope of prevailing in this effort, either. It will see me go 3:3, I suspect. However...

Oh, BTW, I've seen the Hague Con arguments for "defended/undefended" before. The link doesn't answer what "legitimate military target" is, which is what I have never seen (& wondered if it was in parts unreproduced in sources I've read), but it does support my view no city in Occupied Europe was "undefended". TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:10 & 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the draft treaties interbelica defined defence with no mention of radar and the integrated national defences such as the Kammhuber Line line which meant that all of Germany was defended, but not in the ways envisaged in Art 2. of the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938.[2]. Also as all the major powers bombed civilian targets, there is the argument that common practise among states (as happened in World War I with gas) nullifies previous treaty obligations.(Jefferson D. Reynolds. "Collateral Damage on the 21st century battlefield: Enemy exploitation of the law of armed conflict, and the struggle for a moral high ground". Air Force Law Review Volume 56, 2005(PDF) Page 57/58) Without positive international law, such speculation is just that and apart from construction a list of POVs I do not see how such a section can be constructed. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

PBS, I continue to think addressing it beats ignoring it, even if it is only in passing as "a list of POVs". To begin with, this is the first clear statement of what was a legitimate target I've seen, & the BC statements of "targeting factories" make sense in light of Art. 2.b. there; in the same light, that BC crews were lied to is worth mentioning, IMO. The suggestion of war crime & that BC crews were lied to, in light of Art. 4 & Lindemann's "dehousing" memo, is also instructive, IMO. These issues, I suggest, deserve a mention in the debate over bombing, & there are few readers of the page as well informed as either of us (or as almost anybody in the Project). I'm after some kind of look at the ethics of it. And, to be clear, not just the ethics of bombing civilians, but the ethics of expending crews. As noted here, the issue arises & (AFAIK) has never been addressed. IMO, it should be, & can be here, to the widest audience ever, perhaps. Disagree? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the word Draft in 1938 Amsterdam Convention, it was never adopted and given that the developments of radar were top secret, that draft treaty was redundant before it was drafted. Also it has no concept of defence in depth. a good example of this is the movement of anti-aircraft guns from London to the coast to defeat the V-1s. No one in their right mind would say that because the British moved their AAA guns to the coast London was no longer defended, but if one was to use article 2 of the Draft treaty and take it literally one could make a case for saying so. If you are interested in such definitions then you also need to read the legal arguments in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State (1963) which is based on an interpretation of the Hague Convention of 1907 IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923 notice they did not use the 1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention, which if they had would have destroyed their argument.

The British ethics of expending crews, for the period 1942/43 was explained by the Singleton Report. As the second front was not opened for another year the same argument can be used for 1944 as well. That the strategic bombing campaign did not succeed in winning the war on its own, does not undermine the reasons why the British government considered the butchers bill worth paying at the onset of the campaign.

I think it is much more encyclopaedic for an section like Aerial area bombardment and international law than to put together a list of opinions. It is to do with WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. As there was no positive international law on this issue, everyone can hold an opinion on it, so if we "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." then we end up with a list of opinions which I think is a not an encyclopaedic article.

Perhaps you are not aware of the significance of the Rotterdam Blitz and the change of British policy that followed it (See Rotterdam Blitz#Aftermath), but I do not understand your comment "in the same light, that BC crews were lied to is worth mentioning, IMO" Who lied to them (Bomber Crews?) about what? --PBS (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps not. The crews were told they were targeting factories, which was demonstrably false, given the policy of "dehousing" & the express objective of breaking German morale. That there even was a change bears mentioning somewhere, & the reasons for it. So does the evolution of strategic bombing, IMO, from the refusal to allow bombing of German forests ("Are you aware it's private property? You'll be asking me to bomb Essen, next.") to expressly targeting factories (& finding it impossible, per Butt) to "dehousing", plus the claims of "pickle barrel" accuracy proving less so with cloud & AA, plus the persistent fantasies B-17s could sink ships at sea (despite repeated evidence to the contrary).
• I'm not going to debate formatting, 'cause I really don't care exactly how it's presented, only that it should be. Reference to things like, for instance, the Singleton Report, bear inclusion. So, too, IMO, do the options available, posited in Terraine (The Right of the Line) &, less directly, in re ASW.
• I confess I don't see your point over the "draft" nature of the doc, the secrecy of radar, or moving AA. I make no suggestion (nor did I, AFAICT) German cities were ever undefended; I would argue, depending on your definition of "defended", even blackout could count as a defensive measure, & were I defending BC crews, I'd argue it.
• In looking at this, I see nothing addressing my point, namely why something like 1 million Allied (US/UK/Commonwealth) airmen lost their lives in apparently fruitless attacks. (See my remarks here & cf Terraine.) It seems the arguments haven't advanced past Harris' "it's never been tried" or the usual nonsense of "bombing or nothing". I continue to think expending crews (as explained elsewhere), when there were other options, was unethical, as noted in Garrett's Ethics & Airpower in World War II. I also consider the strategic choice of using VLR aircraft for bombing rather than ASW patrol was stupid. Do you disagree these matters, & the evolution of policy, bear discussion somewhere in re strategic bombing? Or perhaps strategy more broadly? A "strategic choices" section, say? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scandals?

Why is this page filed under "Military scandals"? While debate as to the justification for certain aspects of the policy, particularly the saturation bombardments conducted by Britain over Germany and the US over Japan, I do not see how this would qualify it as a "scandal." All parties were operating within both their own domestic laws and international treaties. Further, this article discusses the subject from a purely military point of view. Political and ethical considerations are barely mentioned. "Military scandals" should be reserved, IMO, for grave negligence or a clear violation of the chain of command that endangers civilians. I don;t see how this qualifies. LordShonus (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Category removed. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The British response

I've removed the misquote from JM Spaight. The actual quote is:

"Yet, because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That, surely, was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia's decision, to adopt her policy of 'scorched earth'. It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kief and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol, in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity in 1942 if they had understood what we had done. We should have shouted it from the house-tops instead of keeping silence about it. It could have harmed us morally only if it were equivalent to an admission that we were the first to bomb towns. It was nothing of the sort. The German airmen were the first to do that in the present war. (They had done it long before, too—at Durango and Guernica in 1937, nay, at London in 1915-18.) It was they, not the British airmen, who created a precedent for 'war against the civilian population'" J M Spaight, Bombing Vindicated

The full Spaight quote is far too long for the article, and the snippet that had been "quoted" gave a false impression of Spaight's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymestl (talk • contribs) 09:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

B-17 photo

Appears to be copyrighted by Life Magazine.., not the property of 'a soldier' as stated in this article. http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=e78ea925d4e185a3&q=B-17%20source:life&prev=/images%3Fq%3DB-17%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den —Preceding unsigned comment added by B29bomber (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is owned by either the USAAF or the Army, it was sourced from a DoD site. Koalorka (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Typically, LIFE includes the name of the photographer in their WWII shots. In many cases, the photographer given credit is a member of the Armed Forces, and the snapshot is therefore in the public domain. In this instance, there's no credit given. I find it hard to assume it was taken by a civilian photographer since this shot is clearly over the target. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The shot is beautiful and is one of my favorites.., i have only seen it with the LIFE logo on it though. I am just keeping an eye out for you. Do not want to get the people at LIFE upset for not given them credit for a photo that is copyrighted by them. Cheers, B29bomber (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If LIFE modified the photo in any way, then it is my understanding that it is now copyrighted, even if the image was originally public domain. So, if LIFE stuck their logo on the image, then I think that makes it copyrighted. I checked the link and it appears that the photo was taken from a DoD site, so it's clean. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiroshima

This section is not carefully researched. The area destroyed at Hiroshima - according to the USSBS was 68.5% NOT 90%. The number of cities fire bombed with conventional weapons was 66 NOT 67. I don't have time to correct this now but I will try to come back and go over this more slowly. WardHayesWilson (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the 90% number was buildings damaged or destroyed, not simply destroyed as it says in the table. Good catch! The percentage destroyed was not published in the bombing survey; described there are radii of destruction for concrete and brick buildings, wooden buildings and lesser damage such as broken windows. I didn't find any support for your number of 68.5%. I saw that four square miles or 15.3% of Hiroshima was "flattened to the ground except for 50 concrete buildings".

Good luck with that 66 vs 67 comment. I have seen 67 cities mentioned in every source. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that various sources say different things. The most solid published source for 68.5% that I found was page 59 of the book Rain of Ruin by Goldstein, Dillon & Wenger where it says that Hiroshima, as observed from the air on August 11, 1945, appeared [to investigators studying photographs] to have about 4.7 square miles destroyed and damaged, an area equaling 68.5% of the city. This comparison chart of the USSBS also says 4.7 square miles destroyed, but doesn't say 68.5%. That number is dependent on what is considered the extent of Hiroshima's area. This USSBS page says a roughly circular area that was 4.4 square miles in size was "almost completely burned out."

This page of the USSBS says that the city included 26.36 square miles at the time but only 13 were built up. Seven square miles were moderately or densely built up. The four square miles in the heart of the city contained 75% of the population.

This page of the USSBS says "Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire. This reverberates with the 90% figure that I had found published earlier.

This page of the USSBS says that the Japanese counted up the buildings destroyed and arrived at 62,000 out of 90,000, or about 69%. Another 6,000 buildings were severely damaged.

This page describes various damage areas, depending on the building construction:

• 0.05 square miles - Earthquake-resistant concrete buildings destroyed
• 3.4 square miles - One-story light steel frame buildings severely damaged
• 3.6 square miles - Multi-story brick buildings severely damaged
• 6.0 square miles - One-story brick buildings severely damaged
• 6.0 square miles - Wooden residential buildings severely damaged
• 8.5 square miles - Wood-frame industrial buildings severely damaged

So, if we take the 4.4 sq mile figure and divide it by 26.36, we get 16.7% of the city "almost completely burned out." If we take the 4.7 sq mile "destroyed" figure into 26.36, we get 17.8%. Only if we start ignoring the outlying areas of the city do we get up into much higher percentages. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Targeting London

Didn't targeting london take pressure off the fighter bases, and essentially save the RAF from early destruction? Bachcell (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent major edit

I've removed a couple of sentences following the recent major edit. Firstly "Shortly after Germany invaded Poland and bombed the town of Wieluń, the British bombed Wilhelmshaven, Cuxhaven and Heligoland in Germany, the first bombings to take place, in a strategic sense, outside of a theatre of combat. " In the days and weeks following the outbreak of the war Britain only bombed German warships. By giving the names of the ports it gives a false impression of attacks on land targets. Secondly, the Germans carried out strategic attacks in Poland on 1st September, for example the raid on the airfield at Brest-Terespol on the Polish/Soviet border.

"Nevertheless, after the UK bombed Berlin for the first time, a bombing which "focused on morale", Hitler initiated the Battle of Britain. Germany targetted military and industrial sites in the UK, but the panic caused after an accidental civilian-area bombing led to a change of tactics."

The Battle of Britain began in early July or early August, depending on whether you go by British or German dates, but certainly before the first bombing of Berlin by the RAF. Secondly, the bombing of Berlin focused on several military and industrial targets, not morale, and the link to the later area bombing directive implies this was an area attack, which it wasn't. Thirdly, Germany changed tactics to bombing British cities gradually, due both to the failure to gain air superiority and the inaccuracy of night bombing, but certainly not because of any panic following an accidental bombing of a civilian target.

To me the whole article now seems disjointed and would be better reverted to its 9 April condition.Tymestl (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted to the last version on 9 April, however I think that user:Npovshark has highlighted some problems with the article that need addressing. Information that exists only in the lead should be moved into the appropriate sections and the lead should be re-written as a summary of the main body of the article. --PBS (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this article is long-winded and off-topic and you've disgarded all my efforts to fix it.

No, the allies did not bomb ships, Tymestl, they bombed the port cities. Also, Berlin was bombed after Sylt was bombed in retalliation for the Scapa Flow incident. 11 people were killed. The battle of britain began when the Germans sent planes to britain. Berlin was bombed, and hitler responded to that. This is a well-established fact. [3] I don't know where you are getting your facts from. Then, Secondly, the Germans carried out strategic attacks in Poland on 1st September, for example the raid on the airfield at Brest-Terespol on the Polish/Soviet border. This is not outside a theatre of combat, Germany was invading Poland...that is a scene of combat. In any case, I have changed the wording so anyone who is not clear on where the combat - the only combat in all of europe - was will know.

Also, your next complaint:Germany changed tactics to bombing British cities gradually, due both to the failure to gain air superiority and the inaccuracy of night bombing, but certainly not because of any panic following an accidental bombing of a civilian target. No, that is not true. The opposite is a well known fact, I learned it when I was in 4th grade when I read it in a huge Time-Life book -12 volumes :) - I bought about the war...I remember this bc I got it really cheap, as (and I learned this only later) it had the old myths about lampshades etc. from the Holocaust as facts and the old figures for Auschwitz. Seems they wanted it out of circulation ASAP. But moving on anyway...[4]. It is all right there.

The Holland blitz section and Poland sections were completely ridiculous; the intro was tedious, off-topic and spent far too much time blabbing about the raf and its "policies" (why does the article not mention Gemrany's policies...which it actually followed by not bombing any britain)rather than focusing on the air war.

I fail to see how the article is now "disjointed" instead of rescued of its disjointed-ness, which is what I was pretty sure I did.

For these reasons, I am re-reverting.--Npovshark (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The intro is short

I concur. However, it is short in content, the length should not be much longer than two small paragraphs more, I would suggest. The intro talks about terror bombing, land-air coordinated assaults and the escalation of potency and effectiveness, but what it needs is briefly mention is the oil bombing and resource war, as well as the attack on manufacturing. There needs to be more discussion of the pacific theatre in the intro.--Npovshark (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Image "Chongqing bombed" looks very fake

This picture provides no link to its source, and if you examine it closely, the buildings in the lower left look as though they were superimposed over the smoke, particulary the left building as it "disappears" into the smoke. With that much "smoke", which all appears to have occurred shortly before the picture was taken since the smoke does not extend out of frame, where are the explosions and fire? The picture resides on other pages in a very large role. Can anyone argue that this image is original and not modified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.189.64.96 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly suspicious to my (admittedly untrained) eye. If Hi-Ex was used rather than Incendiaries then would there be widespread fire? Deckchair (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation anyway: [5], which I've tagged on commons. Hohum (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe info out of balance

A lot of new information (~19 kb) is being added to the article today, and all of it is about Europe. Tables that don't have Japan information, assessments of morale and effectiveness that aren't global... Why don't we keep this article balanced regarding the various strategic bombing efforts? The other solution, of course, is to split the article into one central and two daughter articles, one for Europe and one for Asia. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Today I rearranged some stuff and actually reduced the size of Europe section in the article.--Npovshark (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there is a doubled region of text. Probably a copy-paste error. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> npovshark seems to have copy pasted twice, which also reverted most of the changes I'd just made (although he tried to re-insert them again, partially successfully). I don't have the patience to pick through it again and fix this, can't undo easily because of all of the subsequent edits... Do we revert to my last edit and let npovshark re do his edits, or lose mine? Hohum (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Hohum.--Npovshark (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've reintroduced my previous edits without undue pain ;) Hohum (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic progression

' There were further minor attacks on London at night in August, on the 18/19, 22/23, 24/25, 25/26 and 28/29[citation needed]; the raid on night of 22/23 August, first Luftwaffe raid on central London, was described as 'extensive' by British observers.[35] On August 24, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed residential areas of London.[36][37][38][39]The next day, the RAF bombed Berlin for the first time, sending Hitler into a rage.[40][41][42] Targets included Tempelhof airfield and the Siemens factories in Siemenstadt.[43] A swift change in German policy followed.[44][45][46][47]The Luftwaffe, which Hitler had prohibited from bombing civilian areas in the UK, was now ordered to bomb British cities. The Blitz was underway.[48]

The recently added sentence, in bold, has poor grammar and does not fit in with the facts given in the next line by sources which are viewable, and also goes against the conventional understanding of the escalation of the bombing war. The uncited lines about previous raids also go against this standard view. I am noting that the source for the sentence in italics is not retrievable online. Any suggestions about what we should do here? --Npovshark (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith and change the grammar, if you are able to without distortion of the sense of the text. Unless you can prove that Overy's wrong, the facts provided in following lines were probably not too much carefully checked by their authors. Conventional understanding is hardly a good argument. Overy's Battle of Britain is almost certainly viewable, when someone's not visually impaired and has access to a public library. See also something on verifiability rules. The source has not to be retrievable online. --ja_62 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you are unable to see the problem of three sources saying the residential areas of London were accidently bombed for the first time on August 24th, but one source saying that London was already bombed "extensively" on the 22nd and 23rd...

Sorry, but upon further review, I'm afraid I cannot assume good faith. It isn't that I doubt the author, it isn't that I believe the author's statements are being misrepresented, either; however, I have found nothing online which suggests or even mentions that there were bombings of residential areas in cities before the 24th and everything I have found suggests it began on the 24th. For example: [6] Before the 24th, beginning on the 13th, German planes were targeting coastal installations and airfields. This is why it is odd for London to have been hit four or five times, and "extensively" at that. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe was under strict orders not to hit London...the planes that did on the 24th could not find their targets, and struck unknowingly. This latter detail is a common fact, but you asked for sources and I found 3. Are you sure Overy is being represented correctly?--Npovshark (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The extensive bombing of the 22nd 23rd does not necessarily refer to residential (suburban or urban) bombing. The docks and warehouses further along the Thames could be "extensively bombed" and all that would mean is there was a lot of bombing and they hit a lot of places. Assuming "Extensive" is from a contemporary source (the choice of observers suggests this) then the phrase has to be taken in context of the time. Eg Looking back over the course of the war, we could that "the bombing of Y on .... was light but mid-19xx it was extensively bombed" meaning that on the first occasion there were 20 medium bombers and on the latter 150 heavy bombers. The other question would be what is meant by London here, inner London (the old County of London), the London Water Board area or the London Civil Defence Region? I think these points need to be addressed before removing information with a source that can be checked.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Patric Bishop in Bomber Boys writes on page 16 "In the first two months of the air war, 1,333 people were killed as German bombs missed their targets or were scattered at random when the raiders headed for home. On the night of 24 August the first bombs fell on central London and a fortnight later it experienced its first heavy bombardment. That month 6,334 civilians were killed all over Britain...", my emphasis. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

Death toll includes British civilians only. Soviet, Polish and other losses are not included in Allied side. Please update.--Gwinndeith (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)