Operation Gommorra - July / August 1943 : Hamburg "Firestorm" kills thousands.

[r00fie1]

Air Chief Marshall - Arthur "Bomber" Harris devised "Pattern Bombing" of strategic targets, using wave after wave of RAF and Allied [mostly American] Bombers, dropping thousands of tonnes of incendiaries: the ensuing "firestorm" would pull in air to fuel the fire, increasing heat to melt steel and reduce bricks to molten lava. Harris was later to assert in his memoirs - written in his retreat in South Africa, that the bombing was "the most humane" way to defeat the Nazi war effort. The German civilians saw it differently - children burned as the firestorm swept across Hamburg. It was later called "The German Hiroshima" - the effects on the city being not dissimilar to that of the Atomic Bomb on the Japanese City of Hiroshima.





The bodies of the dead were piled high. But, just like the Soviets at Stalingrad and Londoners after the "blitz", Hamburg returned to a functioning city after a couple of months - whilst still mopping up the debris and human remains.

 

[NorthumberlandBoro]

The eye witness accounts are horrific to hear. Ordinary folk in the street bursting into flames.

 

[Boro1876]

Unbelievable times. Must have been truly horrific to take any part.

 

[WoodallServices]

I am literally reading the foreword to “ Enemy Coast Ahead”.

 

[norfolkngood]

Those who win the war write the history.

 

[Redwurzel]

I heard many of bodies melted and there was at times streams of human fat running down the streets. The heat storms sucked the oxygen out of people. 37,000 civilians were killed in a week and 180,000 injured. It was worse than the Blitz on London for deaths. Hamburg was the Liverpool of Germany it was probably the most left wing city in Germany, Nazi support there was less than 25%. The hatred that war created was unbelievable.

 

[r00fie1]

I heard many of bodies melted and there was at times streams of human fat running down the streets. The heat storms sucked the oxygen out of people. 37,000 civilians were killed in a week and 180,000 injured. It was worse than the Blitz on London for deaths. Hamburg was the Liverpool of Germany it was probably the most left wing city in Germany, Nazi support there was less than 25%. The hatred that war created was unbelievable.

 

[Thing]

I heard many of bodies melted and there was at times streams of human fat running down the streets. The heat storms sucked the oxygen out of people. 37,000 civilians were killed in a week and 180,000 injured. It was worse than the Blitz on London for deaths. Hamburg was the Liverpool of Germany it was probably the most left wing city in Germany, Nazi support there was less than 25%. The hatred that war created was unbelievable.

Whilst I appreciate the "left wing like Liverpool" sentiment, I suspect that never played a part in the planning for the bombing of Hamburg.

"It was Germany's second largest city. The city's shipbuilding industry made it a priority target. It also had more industrial targets of interest to the Ministry of Economic Warfare than most other German cities. It was reasonably close to the bomber bases in Britain, so giving a short flight, with less exposure to anti-aircraft fire and fighters. Hamburg's position, close to the coast and on a prominent river made the target easy to find."

Bit like Hull really, which is the most bombed city (by both number of raids and tonnage dropped) in Europe during the 2nd World War. Every day is a school day.

 

[Redwurzel]

I mentioned the politics of the City, because the people in Hamburg had, in general, not voted the Nazis in, but reaped the whirlwind, probably more than most areas of Germany.

I fully agree it was an industrial target and that was a priority for attack by the Allies. Stalin probably pushed the Allies to do much more to hurt the Germans, especially as millions of Russians were been killed on the Easterrn Front.

Hull suffered from a lot of bombing, it had 1,200 deaths throughout the war, compared with 37,000 in one week in Hamburg.

 

[Wyke Red]

Whilst I appreciate the "left wing like Liverpool" sentiment, I suspect that never played a part in the planning for the bombing of Hamburg.

"It was Germany's second largest city. The city's shipbuilding industry made it a priority target. It also had more industrial targets of interest to the Ministry of Economic Warfare than most other German cities. It was reasonably close to the bomber bases in Britain, so giving a short flight, with less exposure to anti-aircraft fire and fighters. Hamburg's position, close to the coast and on a prominent river made the target easy to find."

Bit like Hull really, which is the most bombed city (by both number of raids and tonnage dropped) in Europe during the 2nd World War. Every day is a school day.

Thanks for that Thing

I was born and brought up in just outside Hull, both sets of grandparents live there, as well as through the war. My Nan used to tell stories about the bombing, and how Hull got pounded. How even then on the news it was all about London, Coventry, Birmingham, and then it was mentioned about a city on the east coast, never named. Even today it is not well known how much of a pounding it took.

My Dad was involved in the last air raid in Hull. He had gone to the Savoy cinema on Holderness road, now the were Boyes shop stands.
They had left slightly early and were walking down Holderness road. A couple of minutes later more people left and as the doors opened light shone in the street. A German plane saw this a made a strafing run down the road killing 12 people and wounding 22. As it happened my Granddad pushed my Dad over a hedge and lay on top of him.
They were the last civilians kill in the war by piloted German aircraft.

 

[BoroMart]

It's not a popular thing to say, but I'll say it anyway carpet bombing is a war crime, Churchill was a war criminal. The stock response is "yes, but it was 'total war', so he did what he had to do". MY response is, he didn't need to kill women and children in a war that was practically already won, it was punitive and evil.

 

[norfolkngood]

It's not a popular thing to say, but I'll say it anyway carpet bombing is a war crime, Churchill was a war criminal. The stock response is "yes, but it was 'total war', so he did what he had to do". MY response is, he didn't need to kill women and children in a war that was practically already won, it was punitive and evil.

Churchill was a war criminal many times over in many conflicts.
Harris was a war criminal in this situation.
If we hadn't won the war one wonders where our Nuremburg trials would have been held?

As I said earlier 'Those who win the war write the history'

 

[Redwurzel]

Boro Mart

The RAF called it "Area Bombing" The RAF bombed mainly at night because they felt it was safer for the heavy bombers. Bombing at night was more difficult though, particularly hitting a target when they had limited technology to be precise. So they decided to hit an area (City) rather than a target (a factory). They had smaller smaller bombers but they had to get close to their target and they struggled to be effective without high casualities. The British authorities did believe they were significantly shortening the war by heavy area bombing. Now it is more debateable how successful night bombing was in shortening the war. The Germans were well outnumbered on both Western and Eastern Fronts in 1944. They also lacked fuel by the end of 1944 as they had no access to oil. Many German factories still operated until the very end of the war or they were occupied.

The very heavy bombing late in the War (last 3 months) was defintely wrong in my eyes, but after 5.5 years of war no one was interested in protecting enemy nationals.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

I read a book once where a chapter was set in the firestorm at Hamburg. Can't remember for the life of me what it's called and it's annoying me so if someone is able to remind me I would be grateful.
Either the book Thief or Earthly powers by Burgess are two candidates. Or maybes it's in something by le carre. It's doing my head in.

 

[r00fie1]

Its worth noting, that on two separate evenings, the smoke from the firestorm was trailing high up into the atmosphere and "dust" was reported settling in a wide area of Europe, including parts of the East and South coast of UK.
Smoke and fire was so dense that the bombers couldnt fly safely and the mission on those two days were cancelled.

 

[chickenrunner]

If we hadn't won the war one wonders where our Nuremburg trials would have been held?

As I said earlier 'Those who win the war write the history'

If we hadn't won the war one wonders if you would be able to freely discuss the ins and outs on a message board. As for the history ......... we were locked in an existential conflict with an evil regime that had all Germany in its thrall and whose military machine conquered virtually all of mainland Europe and was conducting the systematic murder of an entire race. There was no room for niceties, defeat was and remains simply unthinkable.
As for the representation on here the the final outcome was a 'foregone conclusion' in 1943, it was certainly not. Even the outcome of D-Day was not the inevitable triumph that we have come to view it as today, it was a hugely risky enterprise. British servicemen were fighting and dying right to the bitter end in 1945 in order expunge the Nazis from the face of the earth.

 

[Lefty]

The strategy was horrible but the right one to adopt. It was the most effective way to win the war earliest.

 

[kuepper]

Was there a couple of years ago, there's a little museum about it in the basement of St Nikolai church.

St. Nikolai Memorial and Museum

www.hamburg.com

 

[r00fie1]

If we hadn't won the war one wonders if you would be able to freely discuss the ins and outs on a message board. As for the history ......... we were locked in an existential conflict with an evil regime that had all Germany in its thrall and whose military machine conquered virtually all of mainland Europe and was conducting the systematic murder of an entire race. There was no room for niceties, defeat was and remains simply unthinkable.
As for the representation on here the the final outcome was a 'foregone conclusion' in 1943, it was certainly not. Even the outcome of D-Day was not the inevitable triumph that we have come to view it as today, it was a hugely risky enterprise. British servicemen were fighting and dying right to the bitter end in 1945 in order expunge the Nazis from the face of the earth.

The D-Day Landings were certainly a perilous exercise, but, as you say, it gave us a way into the Continent - through occupied Northern France, driving the Panza`s eastwards towards Paris.
Once the allies had fought their way off the beaches inland, there were great losses of men and logistics. The main objective was to push back the Germans - which ultimately lead to the battle focused on what became the Falaise Pocket.
I visited the area around Falaise: the carnage was so horrid that streams and rivers flowed red with the blood and bodies of the dead. In addition, the decayed bodies of horses and cattle in the fields polluted aquifers and water tables - rendering farmland so toxic - it couldnt be safely used to grow crops or as fallow ground to graze animals.
The area was virtually closed off untill 1955 when some farming was allowed but there are still areas where live shells and carcasses still appear through the soil.

 

[BoroMart]

The British authorities did believe they were significantly shortening the war by heavy area bombing.

I'm not so sure, I think your second point is more on point

but after 5.5 years of war no one was interested in protecting enemy nationals.

They didn't really care, they were killing Germans and they were trying to break German spirit by killing civilians 'back home' so that front line forces would surrender. Similar to the Americans killing civilians in Japan.