2007-09-26 09:35:16 · 14 answers · asked by Ronan t 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
There was for a short period of time a policy set in motion by Herman Goering to try and destroy symbols of London during the Blitz to weaken the morale of the populace.
This was soon given up though as it required too much precision bombing, far too dangerous and still not accurate enough for the Luftwaffe to attempt.
As for the comment from the above poster that only 4% of London was destroyed, I can only assume that he has never had a look around the city, where you can see the sudden change from pre to post war architecture that spreads through vast amounts of the capital. Much more than 4%.
2007-09-26 11:08:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bombing of London was greatly exaggerated, as the winners write history. Compared to the 100% destruction of most large towns in Germany, only 4% of London was damaged. There was certainly no target bombing downtown, the Planes and later V1 and V2's just unloaded bombs or fell, hoping for a hit. Even today, with the most sophisticated technologies, target bombing is a pipe dream, sold to us by the Pentagon (Why do we have 850,000 civilian casualties in Iraq?)
(Footnote: Around 1000 AD, some Vikings from an area near today Luebeck, Germany pulled with cains the pillars of the bridge down, thats where the poem, London bridge is falling down, comes from)
2007-09-26 09:56:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They were more concerned to bomb strategically important areas, such as the docks and railways and the City of London and also surrounding residential areas to attempt to create panic in civilians and generally disrupt life. Bombing Tower Bridge would have required very detailed precision bombing and would not have been worth the effort involved.
2007-09-26 09:39:53 · answer #3 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They respected the British and did not want to overly antagonize them, hoping eventually they would be allies.
Plus, destroying landmarks does nothing for you, and only makes the enemy more determined.
Because of the bombing of civilians in Britian, the Allies used it as an excuse to carpet bomb German cities. Net loss for Germany.
2007-09-26 09:44:37 · answer #4 · answered by glenn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah!! Who needs to go after all the military targets when you can really stick it to the tourists? The british had fairly good antiaircraft protection agains bombers, making it difficult for them to get very far. Second, there was no precision bombing such as we know today. Even a target you went after could easily be missed.
2007-09-26 09:40:45 · answer #5 · answered by karate 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For the same reason he didn't destroy the landmarks of Paris, Hitler wanted to preserve the landmarks of London for his own personal enjoyment and to avoid fanning the flames of resentment and bitterness coming from a conquered people.
2007-09-26 09:45:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
War rules. Some things are sacred during wartime such as landmarks, churches and hospitals. Even though a war is happening respect is also taken into consideration.
2007-09-26 09:38:43 · answer #7 · answered by Pat 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
As I understand it their aim was to drop fire bombs and allow the city to burn slowly as to cause more casualties and chaos. St Paul's Cathedral came very close to being destroyed.
2007-09-26 09:46:17 · answer #8 · answered by my brain hurts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hitler had great respect for Britain he actually believed that the British would eventually be allied with the Nazi's. Thats why he didnt want to destroy it.
2007-09-26 09:40:21 · answer #9 · answered by regaloid 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They didn't have laser guided bombs. Naturally there was higher chances of more collateral damage!
2007-09-27 03:38:43 · answer #10 · answered by Investor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋