Talk:German bombing of Rotterdam/Archive 1

Kesselring: The command situation
Kesselring's attitude to bombing was at this stage, not as clear as is implied here. The bombing of Rotterdam happended in May. The development of the Battle of Britain into bombing London began to materialize in the following September. Battle of Britain (RJP 09:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

terror bombardment
Since when is an air raid on a fortress a terror bombardment? The front lines were running through Rotterdam, the dutch garrison wanted to defend the city, so it was a legitimate target. Markus Becker02 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The German intend was to frighten the Dutch civilians, also the bombing itself was called off by flares (illegitimate target) and the bulk of the German pilots still chose to bomb the city.
 * Rex 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is wrong. As I already pointed out the presence of Dutch military units made the city a legitimate target and the reluctance to surrender was the reason why the air strike was called. When the Dutch surrendered the air strike was called off, but because of poor communications the message did not reach the airbases base. When the bombers reached Rotterdam they were given signals by the ground troops not to attack –this alone disproves all claims of a terror bombing- but only half of the planes saw the signals in time. So the allegation of a terror bombardment is unfounded. edit: See also Terror bombing, International law in 1945 Markus Becker02 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That may the German perception, but not the Dutch one. Also note that the bombers attacked the cities heart, where no (mentionable) defences were present. Rex 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Markus Becker02, please do not try to make German warcrimes seem less bad. The bombing of rotterdam was a terror bombing and more cities would follow. Don't you ask yourself why the German military attacked a bridge with heavy bombers (and bomb the city heart instead)? Rex 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1907 Hague convention clearly says it was not. It does not say a word about what kind of bomber is and what kind is not prmitted. Therefore you should not remove information from this article that helps others to come to a conclusion, just because you don´t like it. Markus Becker02 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

From Dutch wikipedia;

''Kampfgeschwader 54 was called away from the Belgian front to be deployed in the Netherlands, this was a unit of heavy bombers, not Stukas necessary for a tactical breakthrough. Hitlers goal wasn't a breakthrough over the willemsbrug but the capitulation of the Netherlands. If the Netherlands wouldn't capitulate Utrecht, The Hague, Amsterdam, Haarlem and other large cities will also be bombed. The German defensive arguments supported by International law saying that Rotterdam was a defended city is worthless given that the bombing was a part of a much larger plan''  Rex 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What was planned for other dutch cities that were not defended does not change the fact that Rotterdam was defended and if a city was defended contemporary law allowed air strikes. I think it´s best to put in a reference to these rules and let the readers make up their own minds.Markus Becker02 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Markus Becker02, please do not try to make German warcrimes seem less bad. The bombing of rotterdam was a terror bombing and more cities would follow. Don't you ask yourself why the German military attacked a bridge with 90 heavy bombers (and bomb the city heart instead)? Rex 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1907 Hague convention clearly says it was not. It does not say a word about what kind of bomber is and what kind is not prmitted. Therefore you should not remove information from this article that helps others to come to a conclusion, just because you don´t like it. Markus Becker02 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter, this was terror bombing, in fact it was part of a whole plan of terror bombing. Rex 18:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that this is your opinon, but wikipedia is supposed to be about providing information. And so far you have not come up with any information to support your point of view. But you keep on deleting any information you don´t appreciate. Markus Becker02 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to lecture me on how wikipedia works, I've been here for quite some time. I have come have provide much information, this is a good one, you however did not, what have you got to strenghten your view besides a reference to a 1907 treaty (as if Nazi Germany complied with any treaty) which was proven to be false? Rex 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your general remarks about Nazi Germany usually not complying with treaties are generally correct, but in this specific case meaningless. I suggest you take a look at wikipedia´s own definition of a terror bombing (International law in 1945).  By the way, some of the information you have deleted is not even disputed by the Dutch government http://www.holland.com/oorlogssporen/gb/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not have an own definition. Also the link you've provided doesn't even mention the bombing of rotterdam. Rex 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the article "terror bombing" and go to "International law in 1945"! As far as the other link is concerned, go to Military Operations > 1940: Germans occupy Holland. That´s what you get: http://www.holland.com/oorlogssporen/gb/index.html?page=http://www.holland.com/oorlogssporen/gb/operations/1940.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

I've taken a look and I qoute; "Rotterdam was to be destroyed if the troops did not surrender." 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And did you also see this: "Panicking, Schmidt ordered red flares to be let off to indicate surrender. It was too late. One squadron could abort its attack in time, but the planes approaching from the east dropped their bombs on the City." Does it remind you of something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

Yes, excuses. Just because some German commander tried to stop the terror bombing doesn't mean it wasn't one. Rex 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That allegation still unproven, but it shows nicely how you treat information you don´t like. You know what? An edit war is below my standard. You may keep your article free from politically uncorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Becker02 (talk • contribs)

Maybe there's our difference. You prefer politically correct information while I prefer the truth. Rex 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that they preferred the destruction of Rotterdam (carpet bombers), instead of using tacticle equipment says it all, doesnt it? ~Kardash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.236.182 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite pathetic discussion, as often occures when this kind of symbolic issues drop between people that are poorly informed. Rex claims that the Dutch perception is that Rotterdam was a terror raid. He is hereby invited to provide sources. There has been extended studying on this subject by specialists on the international law and Geneva and Hague conventions. They were generally outspoken in their judgement that the Rotterdam event may have incorporated some frictions with the international law (as to particular procedures such as the grace period of the ultimatum, the Dutch unjust rejection of the first ultimatum and the unwise German decision to send in bombers notwithstanding ungoing negotiations), but that basically the German airforce was entitled to raid the defended town. Hence, it wasn't terror, but plainly a macabre result of modern warfare. Period. Secondly, people often claim that the RAF prior to 15 May 1940 was generally in favour of preserving the international law stipulations as to the limitation of populated area raiding by the RAF strategic bomber groups. That is beloney, long before filed as pure nonsense. The only reason for the RAF not to raid German populated areas containing strategic targets, were the French and British politicians and military key-persons fearing a Luftwaffe response that most likely couldn't be repelled. It had nothing to do with diligent adherence to the international law by the UK, but it was purely a matter of cold calculation. It is probably idle hope that these kinds of silly 'good and bad' discussions cease at some point, but I'll praise the day that so called specialists stop these pointless exchanges of chit-chat. Grebbegoos 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pure POV. You'll find very few historians who'll support the idea that the Germans were "entitled" to bomb Rotterdam.  The Nazi regime started an unprovoked war of aggression - and the international community judged them at the Nuremberg Trials. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * it doesn't matter who started the war, this is about rotterdam and in the nurnberg trials they didn't mention bombing at all since the allies also bombed cities. so your comment is meaningless and only proofs that you are biased. I second that this is not a terror bombing, it was a tactical bombing. the city was defended, dutch and german troops had a battle inside the city and the city had multiple chances to surrender. this is legal according to all treaties including roosevelts appeal. 62.143.253.52 (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Rotterdam Blitz
I am moving this article because: --PBS 12:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is specifically about the German bombing of the City and does not include the Allied bombing of the city, the first raid by the RAF took place only days after the surrender of the Netherlands
 * Most of the article on this subject are either under "Xyz Blitz" or "Bombing of Xyz in World War II".
 * Without this qualifier many cites have been bombarded at other times and so those bombardments might end up in this article.
 * It makes it easier to search for articles if they have similar names.

Fire line

 * The image caption for the memorial pic reads, "Lights along the fire line memorialize the bombing of Rotterdam". What exactly is a "fire line"? We don't seem to have an article about it. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the image depicts an event commemorating the Rotterdam Blitz. Shouldn't this event have its own 'chapter' in this article, or even its own article? (Howcheng-I put an asterix before your comment. hope you don;t mind;)) Mkruijff (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fire line is a line trough the city that marks the borders of the main fire(s) caused by the bombing. 193.172.64.170 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here to query this very thing. An explanation of a fire line, and perhaps a detailed explanation of the picture would be very helpful. The lights in the image appear to be suspended in the air - are they attached to balloons or something? On hills? Gantries?


 * Interesting photo, but it really needs supporting text. 82.20.38.98 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

General review
Amusing to following the (aged) discussion about terror raid or not. A classic. Markus is closer to the truth than Rex. Indeed, Rotterdam was a legid target for German bombers. Mind you Rex, the Dutch had defended Rotterdam for more than four consecutive days and chosen not to evacuate the city although they were positive that their defence would provoke German tactical (or worse) counter measures. Already during the first four days numerous Luftwaffe sorties were flown against the North of town. Besides the raid was part of a tactical operation too. Experts have studied the case numerous times. Only very few consider the raid a straight crime and they cannot be considered unbiased. So much for that topic.

Some remarks to the content:

- 'A Dutch counterattack by a Dutch Marine regiment'. There was no Dutch Marine regiment. There were Marines and there were Navy troops (miliciens). Probably the author referred to a Marines action. That was executed with less than a Marines company. In total there were only 430 Marines in Rotterdam, so not even close to a regiment I'd say ...

-'The situation in Rotterdam on the morning of 13 May 1940 was stalemate.' Nice. It had been a stalemate since May 10 at noon. Not a yard of the front-line was shifted between then and May 14, 1940 at 1800 hrs.

-'On the morning of May 14, Hitler issued Weisung nr 11'; nope. Weisung no. 11 was issued on the 13th to the higher staffs, and one of its effects was the availability of KG.54 to the Dutch theatre. Only the lower staffs got it in the morning of the 14th.

- 'The SS were to make an amphibious crossing of the river upstrea': Nope! It was a combined task force of mainly airlanding troops of 22.ID under Oberst Kreysing that was given the side show. The SS would follow the 9.PD and continue in the direction of Overschie.

- 'However General Student was in overall command and also controlled the air operations. Schmidt's request for air support had to go through Student's HQ, and instead of precision bombers, Student requested carpet bombing and replaced the Stukas by Heinkel He 111 bombers': straight lies all along. General Schmidt was commander in chief of the operations. Since the entire airlanding operation had been commanded and controlled by the Luftwaffe, it was Goering who intervened via Kesselring, commander of Luftflotte 2. Student needly passed on the request for a tactical bombardment via the long wave radio. But in Berlin the ObdL decided otherwise. Stuka's would be applied (and indeed were), but the KG.54 would add its secretly planned raid to the requested recepy. Stuka's were not replaced, but He-111 added. And on the sole initiative of the devious Goering.

- 'and if that would not break Dutch resistance, Amsterdam (capital) and The Hague (seat of government) were to follow the same fate': says who? That funny story has never been substantiated by proof. It was a later heard excuse from Scharroo, copied by his adjutant captain Backer and Mayor Oud. Only the city of Utrecht has been proved to be threatened too.

- not 33 but 27 bombers formed the southern Gruppe [Gruppe Hohne] and of those 27 it were 24 that were waived off before the bombs were dropped.

- The red flare theory citated in the lemma is soly based on the very dubious work of Loek Elfferich. It should be removed. The only valuable addition one could make is why the red flare arrangement had not been set the other way round; flares when bombing is on. That kind of excludes the chances of unintended bombing. That argument has been used by many authors.

- 'Germany threatened to bomb other Dutch cities, but started with Rotterdam due to its unrivalled strategic and industrial importance for the Netherlands '. Citations please! Germany threathened no other cities until Rotterdam was treated as such. Only Utrecht followed. At around 1500 hrs in the afternoon leaflets were dropped over Utrecht from Luftwaffe planes threatening the city to join the fate of Warsaw, not that of Rotterdam. Other cities have not been threatened. Not a single researcher or author has come with any trace of proof of that. This theory was made up as stated before.

-'and the Dutch government decided to capitulate rather than suffer a repeat of Rotterdam in Amsterdam or The Hague'; pure beloney. The memoires of General Winkelman - CIC - and the Hearings 1946-1949 minutes clearly proof that the CIC took the decision to capitulate when Utrecht was threatened to be raided. Amsterdam and the Hague were not mentioned nor part of his considerations. He did however embed in his general thoughts that after Utrecht even more cities could follow. But that was not related to a genuine German threat of those cities.

Generally, quite a poor lemma. Grebbegoos 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

-

I have largely revised the content. I have take out much of the Loek Elfferich citations, for these are highly speculative. Also many of the foreign sources which are too far off. Many of the facts and figures have been modified in full accordance with the generally accepted benchmarks on this topic. Basically I changed all that I addressed hereabove. Grebbegoos 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please add inline citations for the changes you have made (WP:PROVEIT). --PBS (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me, anybody, is it okay to use Dutch sources? The problem with this topic is that there are no reliable sources in the English language with exception of www.waroverholland.nl; none whatsoever. So we are limited to Dutch and German sources. Grebbegoos (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dutch are better than no sources (V). PBS (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty Dutch and German sources. I shall add them. Got to study some of the tools first though ;)Grebbegoos (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The simplest way is   at the end of the sentence you wish to cite. You will find details at WP:CITATION and WP:FOOTNOTES. As you will see from the current citations in the article, a better way is to add the book to the References section and just a short citation to the text:  . --PBS (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated a number of references. I have added them in the text too. Probably not perfectly, styling wise. But at least references are made now, hopefully adding value to the re-write. Grebbegoos (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put the manual foonotes into WP:FOOTNOTE. But you have not included page numbers (which we need for a full citaion) so I could not tell if [Ref no. 1] for example was always to the same page number, therefore I have put each citation in separately apart from the web page. Also you do not seem to use your citation webpage ref no. 6 anywhere. --PBS (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me get back on that request next weekend. Now I am too busy to attend to it for it will take some time to find the exact quotes. Grebbegoos (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking about footnotes, this is the first time ever that I see a comic book being used to back up information in a history article! Iblardi (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Letter?
I find it very strange that nobody mentions the administrative mistake which led to the bombing. The Dutch sent the ultimatum letter which they had to sign, back to the Germans, because they read the name of a different office/administration on it. Can someone please work out the details, and put it in the article? ~Kardash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.236.182 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Allert Goossens
The website of Allert Goossens, is cited several times, but I suspect not all the citations are to the "Welcome" page. Please could we have the web page that contains the information in the individual citations rather than having them all lumped together as one. --PBS (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Causes of fire
As I understand much of the devastation was brought on by vegetable oil tanks in the docks that were ignited by boms, and as a result great fires spread across much of city centre, which was the direct cause of the destruction, rather than the relatively small number of bombs dropped. IIRC it was part of the article too - why was it removed...? It needs to be stated, if it can be verified. The BA-MA commons even have pictures of these veggie tanks - can be used for illustration. Kurfürst (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "a small number of bombs"? The german administration mentioned 1150 bombs of 50 kg and 158 bombs of 250 kg. Everything is relative.--Antiphus (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent piece of German war propaganda! The fires ignited at many different locations. The vast area of destruction could never have been caused by a single large fire source, let alone a source in the harbour area. Please study appropriate sources rather than the German war propaganda. About 60 medium bombers unleashed 158 bombs of 250 kgs and 1,150 of 50 kgs, altogether a mere 100 tonnes. A wide corridor from the northeast to the southwest (ending at the river) was flattened. Not a chance that the dock fire caused the vast amount of destruction. Fires all over the raided area raged, caused by numerous ruptured domestic or small business gasoline tanks, domestic coal-stocks, etc. and fed from debris and plenty of free flying curtains and other lightly enflamable stuff. Increasing fire storms in the bombed corridor and last but not least the almost utterly ruptured water-circuit that caused available fire-fighting equipment to be fully dependant on canal-water. Plenty of WW2 examples of identical effects elsewhere around the continent after air-raids. It is a pity that much of the war propaganda still finds suitable grounds to grow its seeds ... Grebbegoos (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for being German 'wartime propaganda', it seems to have been accepted by a large number of historians, like Hooton, there are pictures of the burned veggie tanks in the BA-MA wiki commons. Do you have a source that states it was created ex-post facto by German propaganda troops? I have my doubts about this, but the information of the number of bombs dropped, how the fire started, and the points of impact, intended targets given out to aircrews etc. would be a very good addition into the article, if it can be sourced. Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Name me the apparently long list of accepting historians please. Besides the fact that foreign historians have proven over the last 65 years to know little to none about the side-show in Holland May 1940, not a single historian of reputed name has copied this German fantasy. The list of foreign historian flawing in their publications on the Dutch May war is practically endless.

It is total crap, and all founded on the German propaganda message that a hit on a large butter-factory was the cause of the giant inferno. Anyone with a bit of sense, taking a good look at the commonly known pictures of the entire city heart of Rotterdam wiped away from the map Pictures of Rotterdam after the Blitz , is able to realize that not a single fire near the harbour docks could have caused this much extensive devastation. Grebbegoos (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * may 14th 1940 Please take a close look at all of these pictures, meditate for a moment picturing some ignited vegetable oil tanks destroying the complete! medieval center? It makes no sense whatsoever. Period. Or is it suggested the Rotterdammers decided to destroy their own town just to make the germans look bad? I'm removing this quotes Hooton mistakenly made of the german WWII war propaganda.


 * Original research (interpreting photographs of damage) is unacceptable per WP:OR. If you can find it, you need to provide references by reputable sources per WP:V, and include them alongside the currently well cited material, and NOT simply delete things and assure everyone that you're right. Hohum (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No serious dispute on this matter. It's really a shame! That Rotterdam's destruction was caused by many bombs scattered all over the square-mile of its area is a fact. The photographs don't need interpretation, they speak for themselves. Hooton is not a renowned historian. Better provide references from reliable sources for his claims instead.--Antiphus (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I put Hooton back in the article but in a rather more balanced manner.--Antiphus (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's as simple as this: You need to provide sources for what you are saying (specifically that conventional wisdom disagrees with Hooton, i.e. a very good source or several good sources saying what conventional wisdom is in this case). This is a wikipedia policy WP:V. You asserting that it is a fact is of no use whatsoever. Hohum (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hohum, suppose that someone starts claiming that no deliberate bombing but occasionally hit oiltanks were the cause of the devastation of London, or Birmingham, Bristol or Cardiff, Clydebank or Coventry, Greenock, Sheffield or Swansea, Liverpool, Hull etc. Would you even for one moment consider serious arguing on this subject? I can give lots of supplementary references concerning the bombing of Rotterdam, in Dutch, but there are plenty references as to the number and spreading of the bombs already in the current article: Loe de Jong, Thom Roep and Co Loerakker, Aad Wagenaar etc. I stick to my wording: It's Hooton that is disagreeing and he should come up with sources. Cheers--Antiphus (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd ask for reliable references to include it, as I have here. You need to comply with WP:V, which is a policy, and back up your otherwise unsubstantiated claim that one author is reflecting conventional wisdom, and the other isn't. It's that simple. You can use Dutch references as long as they are verifiable WP:V and reliable WP:RELIABLE (just like any other source needs to be). See WP:NONENG Hohum (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that wikipedia articles cannot serve as references themselves, but you could check the references that that they use to see if they are applicable in this article - but you would need access to them in some form in order to verify that they say what you cite. Hohum (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hohum, you haven't read my comment. The number and spreading of the bombs, iaw the deliberate carpet bombing, is already sufficiently covered in the article, with references. From reliable sources. It is a fact, like the Bombing of Guernica, like the bombing of Warsaw. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.--Antiphus (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And again some editor changed the order of topics in the article putting more weight on Hooton's claims. For a while now this silly but evil dispute concerning the terrible destruction of Rotterdam has been going on. A silly dispute because the outcome of the bombing is known and the argument is futile. Accusing others of 'tinkering' another editor presented this nontopic in the article in a way that made the bombing look like a minor happening with an occasional hit on an oil tank: Eureka now we know what caused the vast destruction. It's a tendentious quasi-argument but apparently inspired by a hidden agenda: to suggest that the bombing itself was limited and that it took vegetable oil tanks to destroy the city. A silly dispute that has to end.--Antiphus (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I read your comment. What you are saying is that you won't have trouble finding sources to support the phrasing - so provide them, inline, to support it, which should put the matter to an end, and stop the tendentious editing. Hohum (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on the sources. In respect to the latest edit by Kurfürst: a false impression of parity in my opinion: i.e. Hooton versus Wagenaar. To state that "Historians are divided on the causes of the fire" is giving a false impression of parity. I quote: "R. Hooton states that the bombs hit and ignited some vegetable oil tanks ... resulting in uncontrollable fires that spread into the city centre. Wagenaar on the other hand believes that the fires were caused by bombs hitting residental and cultural buildings..." It is not just Wagenaar that believes that the fires were caused by bombs hitting buildings but rather all experts minus one! A false impression of parity if I ever read one. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. (For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field). --Antiphus (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is quite pathetic that Hooton is mentioned as a reputed source Hohum. It should be stricken all along. The only base source for this odd theory of a butter and vegi-oil plant to have caused the raging fire comes from German war-propaganda sources making that tale up to boost the nazification process of the Netherlands. The numerous genuine sources that remain quite down to earth on the cause of so much devastation, mention the actual causes like the powerless ring-lines of the watersupply, the increased wind and the quite extended bombed surface causing the fire to easily find food for expansion. Elas, the wiki system provides plenty of wanna-be's an easy opportunity to edit whatever they like, tilting the history archives on wiki any way the like. That is why wiki remains an instable platform to retrieve information from. Grebbegoos (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * wikipedia needs more than your assurances that Hooton isn't a WP:RELIABLE source; otherwise there is no reason exclude him as a reference. Consequently I have reverted your change until you provide a reason better than your bare opinion. If you wish, you can obtain community input on whether he is a reliable source here: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hohum (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The bloody arrogance! The whole article is full of references to sources that provide the genuine causes of the large fires. But if tomorrow some new Irving arises and publishes a book that revises it all, our esteemed Hohum changes history on all wiki accounts. Fine by me. That is why I dismiss wiki to all as a source of information. It is full of crap just by these practises of allowing nit-wits to edit. Suit yourselves. Grebbegoos (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what part of my suggestion that you obtained community input on Hooton's status as a reliable source offends you. It's a perfectly normal and effective procedure to ensure wikipedia uses reliable sources. Hooton, by the way, is far from being another Irving, he openly calls some of the Luftwaffe's attacks, terror bombings. Hohum (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

An author using German propaganda reports as a sole source to state certified beloney like the vegi-plant inferno as being the root-cause of the Rotterdam devastation should not be a source mentioned in a serious article on the Rotterdam raid. It shows just the limited inside foreign 'historians' often show as it comes to the peripheral of the main battles in WWII. I see no reason whatsoever to maintain the Hooton reference in this article. But like I said, it is exactly this kind of personal claims by wiki authors that makes this platform a poorly informative web-base. Grebbegoos (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath
Sometimes it's speculated, that the Rotterdam-Blitz was the cause of a change in british bombing politics to start bombing civil targets. That was also alleged in the article (and just changed by me). In fact, british bombing strategy changed with Winston Churchill becoming prime-minister on May, 10th, 1940. The first bombing of civil targets hit german city Mönchengladbach on May, 12th 1940, a few days earlier than german bombing of Rotterdam. So the Rotterdam-blitz was not the cause of british strategic bombing. Maybe the german terror-bombing justified Churchills change of strategy, but this is just speculation and therefore not part of this article. --mmg (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have removed passages which had supporting citations, yet only provided your own personal assurance that it was otherwise. That doesn't seem credible. If you can find your own citations to support your alternate view than it should be included along with the existing supported one. I am reinstating the previous version. Hohum (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article notes that it was civilian targets outside the combat zone, and west of the Rhine was considered to be in the combat zone so if Mönchengladbach was bombed that does not mean that the UK did not have such a policy. If User:Hohum had not, I would have reinstated the passage. --PBS (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taylor (one of the quoted sources says on page 110,111:
 * The Air Staff had considered that if the Germans invaded the low countries, it would be time "to take the gloves off." Even when that happened the politicians still hesitated. Then came Rotterdam. The next day the War Cabinet approved the plan long supported by the Air Staff and Bomber Command. Attacks against German targets. Bomber Command had already been carrying out night raids against marshaling yards and communications inside Germany but only west of the Rhine (that is immediately behind the front) reckoning that these would count as legitimate attacks by any international standards.


 * --PBS (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Hohum, You are right, I removed citations without giving my sources. The bombing of Moenchengladbach was documented in numerous literature, so this fact is usually undisputed: e.g. more can be found in german WP under: Mönchengladbach or Flächenbombardement et. al. User:PBS, You are right, the bombing of Moenchengladbach was an action closely related to the Westfeldzug's military actions, but if Moenchengladbach may have been the combat zone was not that clear. Maybe I was too quick deleting the text. But one should insert, that RAF-bombing of civil targets west of Rhine-River was already accepted by british strategy. Of course the Moenchengladbach-bombing was only of small impact with much lesser damage compared to Rotterdam-Blitz or other german actions like the bombing of Warsaw or Guernica. What I wanted to state clear is: bombing of civilian targets before Rotterdam-Blitz may not have been the BC's aim, but it happened. (Churchill becoming prime-minister was also a factor of changing british strategies; but I didn't recall, the War-Cabinet approved the plan *after* Rotterdam Blitz - my fault, sorry!)  I make some alteration to the article, which may be less disputed, if that's okay. - regards --mmg (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, the British hesitation not to bomb strategic targets nearby populated areas was not so much given in by diligent adherence to the international law, but merely by cold calculation. Already during the Phoney War period the matter was addressed by RAF strategic command, but waived off by the French and British strategists as a provocation of the Luftwaffe. They expected the Luftwaffe to retaliate in large numbers. It was feared that such a massive response could not be repelled by the RAF and ground-to-air defences. Only when the invasion of the West occured on the 10th of May, the gloves were taken off. Unfortunately it is too often suggested that the RAF's motives were of an idealistic and human nature. That wasn't the case though. It was simple calculation. Grebbegoos (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the start of WWII international law was not clear on the issue, (See Aerial bombardment and international law). I fail to see the point you are making as the armed services of civilized countries adhere to wishes of their government (as noted in GVIII "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority"), and so the decision on whether to keep to the terms laid out by the Americans was always going to be a political one (see Strategic bombing during World War II. --PBS (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The international law wasn't clear on the specifics, but individual terms like saving undefended sectors or populations from indiscriminate acts of war, saving institutions of human and religious character, the processing of ultimatums, etc. were clear. I am sorry to read that you fail to see the point. The thing is that all too often the point is made that the RAF decided not to raid German strategic sectors or cities due to the chances of collateral damage into the adjecent populated area, in other words on humane grounds. Hence, it is implied that the RAF (British) were being all that diligent in their adherence to the international laws. That subtile thought is unjust. Their considerations were of an operational kind, not a humane kind. On 5 September 1939 the RAF approached Ministre Kingsley Wood addressing the matter of raiding German strategic targets as in response to the German invasion of Poland. It was rejected. Churchill proclaimed on 13 September 1939 that if was not up to Brittain to set the first step into raiding Germany as it would unpleasantly work out on the imperative need of American support of Brittain. Gamelin informed Daladier on 9 September 1939 that Allied planes were restricted from raiding on German soil in fear of German response to either British or French cities. Those are quite significant issues. It means that should the Entente have felt comfortable in their airforce arsenals and abilities to repel German response, they probably would have started strategic raids into Germany as early as September 1939. That, my dear Philip, is quite a significant footnoot to the matter, wouldn't you think? Grebbegoos (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The RAF had to follow their directives, they could not dictate their own policy. So it was not the RAF whether or not to bomb German cities east of the Rhine, it was a War Cabinet decision. That the RAF wanted to bomb strategically, was a given for the same military professional reasons that motivated the USAAF later in the war. If all an air force does is tactical bombing in support of an army (Navies have their own air support) there is no need to have a separate air force (this often happens with command over helicopters which come under the command of armies rather than air forces).


 * There was no positive international law regarding aerial bombardment, whether or not the laws of war relating to land warfare and naval warfare, particularly where they had things in common covered aerial warfare was and is debatable. That is why it is worth reading Aerial bombardment and international law (and also Javier Guisández Gómez |The Law of Air Warfare, 30 June 1998 International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363, which is one of the citations in that article). As to why the parties to the conflict agreed to self restraint: because of fear of the pre-war maxim "The bomber will always get through" (the fear of lex talionis has long been a reason for the development of mutual restraint and the laws of war (see Declaration of Lex Talionis); or for short term political expediency (we need the Yanks on side); or for moral reasons (aka Bishop George Bell); does not really matter to the context of this article. What is relevant is that this raid was a catalyst for the expansion of what would become indiscriminate area bombardment by all parties later in the war. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I recognize a lot of diplomacy in this last response that could be easily projected on plenty of accusations laid on the German side. But as I experienced during my many years as a war-historian, the war is still on, but then on paper... If we could only find a point of unbiased history analysis, it would be the day! Grebbegoos (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source for the attack on Monchengladbach on May 12th, so I will remove the part where it says that only after the attack on Rotterdam the RAF started attacks into inner Germany: http://www.rp-online.de/niederrhein-sued/moenchengladbach/nachrichten/bomben-auf-jack-1.702198 91.61.102.44 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe / propaganda
A recent addition seems to be fringe/propaganda - I don't believe it has a place in this article. "German weekly Die Mühle (The windmill) stated that the Dutch government was to blame for turning Rotterdam into a fortress, despite multiple summonses to evacuate. It also claimed that the old city was ignited by Dutch bombs and incendiary devices."

Hohum (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed it is an example of German propaganda just as the propaganda of the 'western news agencies' is mentioned a few lines earlier in the article. Wouldn't mentioning examples of war propaganda of both sides give a more balanced article? If there's no place for the former than remove the latter as well. cheers--Antiphus (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not have a problem with the "German propaganda" in the article as it clearly stated the source and gave a sense of the word of words at the same time we had one using bombs. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Content fork
I propose that the article is split. The sections on the allied bombings being moved into a separate article Bombing of Rotterdam in World War II. -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The current entry is small and has passing relevance to this article. Unless it's going to be greatly expanded, I'm unconvinced that a split is neccessary. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Allied bombing of Rotterdam -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The title of this article is incorrect
A Blitz is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with war. Even the term Blitzkrieg refers to a rapid movement of motorized troops and tanks, never to air operations. Everybody but a few ignorant Anglo-Saxon yellow press writers knows about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.250.68 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of blitz is correct and did not cause me any surprise when I saw this article's title. See definition #1, part b on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blitz
 * One question that comes to mind is that blitz in this context may be an American English usage. If's the wrong word for British English then I'd support renaming the article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blitz was used from early in the war by the British press and public just as it was in the States. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename Article
Can we rename this article to Bombing of Rotterdam? Alternatively Bombing of Rotterdam (1940) or Bombing of Rotterdam in World War II. ''Rotterdam Blitz' is hardly used. Grey Fox (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment & support rename to Bombing of Rotterdam in World War II - In my mind blitz more accurately describes what happened in that sections of the city were leveled to the ground. I also see Belfast Blitz, Liverpool Blitz, Baedeker Blitz, Manchester Blitz, Bristol Blitz, Plymouth Blitz, Clydebank Blitz, Sheffield Blitz, Birmingham Blitz, and there's likely more as I only looked at the first 4 of 13 pages of results in Wikipedia article titles containing "blitz."). The reference work History of World Trade Since 1450 (2006) just has ...the bombardment of the inner city.... The reference Cities of the World (2002) has ...the city center was demonstratively destroyed by the most intense aerial bombardment known to that time. The user Grey Fox has a link above for Google books for "Rotterdam Blitz". That has 23 hits. I see that "bombing of Rotterdam" gets 1,590 results from Google Books. Thus while Rotterdam blitz seems to be a valid title I don't have a problem with renaming the article. The list of articles within Template:WWII city bombing can help with giving us consistency for the new title. Of the cities in that template we have "Bombing of city in World War II" (54), "City Blitz" (19), "Bombing of city"(7), and "Bombings of city in World War II" (2). The numbers in parentheses are the article counts for that style. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am reversing the move. It has been at Rotterdam Blitz for many years with at least one previous reversal, and for such move I think a WP:RM is appropriate. We have an unwritten convention that articles about the Allied bombings are titled "Bombing of city in World War II" and German bombings as "City Blitz"  (hence the list you produced). This is completely in line with British usage, where they borrowed blitzkrieg and chopped it in half and used Blitz to describe the bombing of cities by the Germans. -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is pure nonsense
...even the headline.

How can just 90+ tons of bombs from 50 twin engine bombers be called a "Blitz". It's truly amazing that this propaganda silliness is still being thrown about 70+ years after the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.125.120 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is named per WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources use this term. Can you suggest a more prevalent English term used by reliable sources? Also see the thread directly above this one. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A-historical pseudo-German revisionsm
A user by the name of Denniss has repeatedly changed the following text; "The Rotterdam Blitz refers to the aerial bombardment of Rotterdam by the German Air Force on 14 May 1940, during the German invasion of the Netherlands in World War II. The objective was to support the German troops fighting in the city, break Dutch resistance and force the Dutch to surrender. Even though preceding negotiations resulted in a ceasefire, the bombardment took place none the less, in conditions which remain controversial, and destroyed of much of the historic city centre, killing nearly nine hundred civilians and leaving 30,000 people homeless."

... to the one shown below: "The Rotterdam Blitz refers to the aerial bombardment of Rotterdam by the German Air Force on 14 May 1940, during the German invasion of the Netherlands in World War II. The objective was to support the German troops fighting in the city, break Dutch resistance and force the Dutch to surrender. Even though negotiations were successful, failing communications on the German side caused the unnecessary bombardment of much of the city centre."

In discussion:

Calling this section 'German POV' would be wrong as this isn't the consensus among either the general German populace let alone the prevalent view among Germany's history scholars. If anything, this seems to be the view of a Wikipedia user who goes by the name of Denniss.

In the mist of time, the reason the German military had for bombing Rotterdam in 1940 can never be definitively known. Even if all possible sources would be available (which they are not, and will never be) they could (and would) still be biased to a very serious degree for the simple fact that these documents and testimonies would all be from persons with a "German agenda". For one thing; the idea that troops could be "supported" by medium bombers carrier incendiary bombs, is enough for most to (in any case) cast doubt on any possible intention. (this is all explained within the article as a whole, I shall not continue on this.)

Given this, to answer this historical question with a single answer such as that "the bombing was the result of failing communication" is simply nonsensical. Stating that the nature of the bombing remains controversial, is the closest anyone can and will ever get to the "truth". To state anything but this would be nothing but historical fraud.

Furthermore, another statement made by Denniss states that the bombing was "unnecessary" because negations had been "successful" (talking about POV-writing, to whom where they a "success" exactly?) which strikes me as very odd. Given the open policy of isolationism and neutrality of the Netherlands (since 1839) the entire invasion of the Netherlands by Nazi-Germany could very well seem "unnecessary" to many if not most. In fact, the (seemingly implied) "necessity" of German actions in World War II as a whole, are unknown to me. Would you care to enlighten me on that?

Apart from this, what Denniss did as well, was change the articles infobox. Specifically, the wording concerning the "result". Which he changed from "884 civilian dead, Rotterdam surrenders" to "German victory". Now, any moderately intelligent reader will note the logical discrepancy in that the same user who claims that the bombing of Rotterdam was unintentional and due to error, still considers it a "victory" as, if anything, that premise would make it a "failure" to say the least.

Of course, that is of secondary importance the main concern with it is the following: sorting these kind of events into 'victories' and 'defeats' does not only make seem child-like, it is also bad historical writing. A football match is either won, drawn or lost. This is not a football match, this is war.

History isn't a scoreboard, World War II is not a computer game. If the result was a German "victory", then surely it was a Dutch "tragedy" as well. The factual result was the surrender of Rotterdam and the death of nearly 900 Dutch civilians. Those are the facts. Changing that to anything similar to "German victory" is not only offensive to the Dutch people as a whole, but (and this is the point most important for Wikipedia and this article) bad historiography not even worthy of being called "amateur".

In addition: Denniss also removed the category Category:Mass murder in 1940 from the article. Considering this event fits all possible definitions of Mass murder, this also seems odd to me.

I would ask for anyone reading this (especially Denniss of course) to share their views on this.

Regards, Kleinsma80 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) (aka 77.169.3.175)


 * Nice Blurb above, it was actually you starting an edit war with your POV pushing, you have not even bothered to read the discussions here. The communication problems are stated in the article. It's also a well known fact that these signal flares were fired but not seen by all attacking airgroups. The infobox does not list losses at all for both sides. It's always a bad idea to bomb large cities to achieve military targets, this could be seen by bombings from all sides. --Denniss (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will revert your biased pov version every single time, as long as you refuse to discuss my points raised above. Straw man arguments will not stand. Kleinsma80 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to Bombing of Rotterdam

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Closed as no consensus for move without prejudice to a refiling in the future. This is one of several pages currently under review at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (see User:Kleinsma80 reported by User:Dapi89). Accordingly, due to the conflict of interest the filing editor has, the page can not be moved in good faith until the all issues related to both civility and the edit warring claims are sorted out, otherwise the move will be tainted by the accusations that the editor in question disrupted Wikipedia to make a point by initiating a move change while under administrative review. While this closure comes about as a result of the filing editor being under administrative review, it should not automatically disqualify the page from being moved by a neutral editor in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotterdam Blitz → Bombing of Rotterdam – Excluding wikipedia's own pages, "Rotterdam Blitz" has 16.800 results using google, whereas "Bombing of Rotterdam" has 183.000 results. On a side note, the common Dutch name (bombardement op Rotterdam, which translates as "bombing of Rotterdam) has over a million results. Searching on google books, "Rotterdam Blitz" has a mere 63 results, "Bombing of Rotterdam" has 4.650. Google scholar gives 219 results for the latter, while "Rotterdam Blitz" gets only 6 results. --Relisted Tyrol5   [Talk]  02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Kleinsma80 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support straightforward. And sounds more like an encyclopaedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This bombing does not compare to the London blitz-- Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  02:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Contemporaneous British term not really in use now.Brigade Piron (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose see also the section above The title of this article is incorrect. Most of articles about German raids are styled "xxx Blitz" most of those involving the Allies are styled "bombing of xxx in World War II" (there have been other bombings/bombardments of many European cities during history, so including that stops people bringing in other bombardments, indeed this city is a good example of where I think there should be two articles one on the German blitz and one on the Allied bombing of Rotterdam in World War II. So I think a better way forward is to leave this article where it is and create a new article for the Allied bombardment (see Content fork section above), and include in this article information about the 44/45 bombings by the Germans. If this article is move to "Bombing of Rotterdam" then as soon as the split takes place it will become a dab page as it could refer to either bombing and probably several other bombing in history. So I think it is better to leave this page where it is as it limits the scope of the artilce. -- PBS (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a lie, there is no such convention. Bombing of British cities are often referred to as X-blitz, it is wrong and ridiculous to claim that to be standard for all allied cities. Such as for example the Bombing of Warsaw or the Bombing of Darwin. Kleinsma80 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about Nazi bombing of Rotterdam? It is more specific than both options and also commonly used: 33,500 on Google Search, 37 on Google Books, 2 on Google Scholar. gidonb (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then again, better English would be "Bombing of Rotterdam by Nazi Germany", also including the bombing country. 3,500 on Google Search, 1 on Google Books, none on Scholar, but the above are also references in the direction. The title would also be consistent with Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and the like. gidonb (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposing move to Bombing of Rotterdam by Nazi Germany, which is more specific and consistent with other titles at Wikipedia. For usage, please see my comment above. gidonb (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why Include "Nazi" in it? one could write "Bombing of Rotterdam by Germany" or "German bombing of Rotterdam" or for that matter just leave it at "Rotterdam Blitz" which is another term for the same thing. --PBS (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been established, that 'Rotterdam Blitz' is not the common name for this event. In fact, it has been conclusively proven to be extremely uncommon. This view has already met wide and overwhelming support here. Kleinsma80 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A simple google Book search returns about 400 hits for "German bombing of Rotterdam" and about 100 for "Rotterdam blitz". So it is not an uncommon name for the event, and it has the advantage of being consistent with the common British name for such contemporary bombings by the Germans. It can not be named-- PBS (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have created an article called Allied bombing of Rotterdam and I have made the Bombing of Rotterdam dab page. -- PBS (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also file a request move for that page shortly as well and request removal of the disambiguation page. Kleinsma80 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? There were more Allied raids on Rotterdam than German ones. -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - renaming this to bombing of Rotterdam in World War II with Rotterdam Blitz name clearly mentioned and put all instances of strategic and tactical bombing in it. Rotterdam was unfortunate enough to be bombed by both sides and you'd want to mention each article in the corresponding other for completeness, so why split? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding comment: Rotterdam had only been bombed during World War II, the addition of it therefore seems superfluous. Kleinsma80 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They should not be merged because the specific bombing by the Germans had strategic implications which are described in the aftermath section. This is very different from the rest of the bombing of this city which is standard run of the mill stuff. If the German bombing did not have its own significance then I would agree with you, and there are many cities that were bombed by both sides (Stalingrad being an obvious example), but in this case the subject of the German bombing of Rotterdam is notable enough to warrant its own article. -- PBS (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The German bombing has no significance, the destruction of Rotterdam in 1940 has significance. When speaking of the 'Bombing of Rotterdam' that is what it meant; the bombing of the undefended city of Rotterdam in 1940 by the German air-force. That is why this article will be renamed as such. Allied bombings of industrial complexes in the vicinity the Rotterdam harbor for the duration of the occupation are not meant and either should have their own article or be included in this one but the title is going to be 'Bombing of Rotterdam'. Kleinsma80 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your comment is confusing as it was German bombing that caused the destruction of Rotterdam in 1940. When you say "When speaking of the 'Bombing of Rotterdam' that is what it meant" how do you know that is what is meant if it is unqualified? If all that is meant by "Bombing of Rotterdam" is the 1940 attack then it needs qualification because clearly there were other bombardments. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - clearly most common name for event.--Staberinde (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure that the google searches are a particularly helpful indicator when one of the search terms is a simple descriptive phrase. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Bombing of Rotterdam II

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. While the previous MRV explicitly allowed a new request, there's clearly not consensus for such a move now. Since this request is framed as a second look at a previous RM, which was itself relisted, I don't see value in relisting. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotterdam Blitz → Bombing of Rotterdam – As can be read in the above section, references and popular opinion here on wikipedia support the move. However, despite there being a clear majority in favour the move was not carried out because of a personal conflict between to users; I don't see this existing anymore and suggest this page is moved to its correct and most common title asap. 77.169.3.175 (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that one of the users who was deemed being in a personal conflict above has since, during or shortly thereafter made "bombing of Rotterdam" a disambiguation page. However, that page should go as by "bombing of Rotterdam" in 99,9% of all cases, this article is meant. It is the most common name as clearly and already proven in the previous discussions above. Thank you, 77.169.3.175 (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" (WP:COMMONNAME). The name "Bombing of Rotterdam" has problems:
 * Disambiguation page . There were many Allied raids on Rotterdam which in total kill as many as the German bombing so the name "Bombing of Rotterdam" is a dab page to two articles, Allied bombing of Rotterdam and this article Rotterdam Blitz.
 * Consistency . "Rotterdam Blitz", meets the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME and also consistency (as described in WP:AT). An alternative would be "German bombing of Rotterdam" but this name is inconsistent with the names given to the bombing of other West European cities by the Germans which are described as "xyz Blitz" (See the template:WWII city bombing for conformation of this).
 * Non NPOV . Insisting that this is article should be called the "bombing of Rotterdam" whilst giving less weight to the "Allied bombing of Rotterdam" which killed as many, is a non neutral point of view. While using the names "Rotterdam Blitz" and Allied bombing of Rotterdam as two names from a dab page called "Bombing of Rotterdam" carries no such POV implications.
 * -- PBS (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with PBS. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus732 (talk • contribs)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bombs to casualty ratio?
I seem to think the Germans managed to kill 9 civilians per tonne of bombs released. Was that a high number for that time? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

30,000 killed
I do not think that this edit is justified in completely removing the sentence with the edit comment "Removed unencyclopedic entry that had no WP:RS support."

As a simple Google search throws up plenty of reliable sources I am not sure how this conclusion was reached.:

A search on [Rotterdam 30,000 killed] returns lots of reliable sources (all of the below are from a search of the web and Google books using that search string):

""Two hours later Rotterdam's defenders surrendered. In London the next morning, and indeed in every city in the world outside the Axis countries, newspapers blazoned the horror of the attack, claiming 30,000 dead and characterising the German demolition of the old city as an act of unmitigated barbarism.""
 * Among the Dead Cities by A.C. Grayling Page 30

Some contemporary sources: While the wording my not be the best there are plenty of sources to support that the Allied and neutral press did publish the number of 30,000.
 * St. Petersburg Times - Jul 17, 1940 30,000 killed in Rotterdam raid AP, Washington
 * US National Archives Identifier: 535916 "The German ultimatum ordering the Dutch commander of Rotterdam to cease fire was delivered to him at 10:30 a.m. on May 14, 1940. At 1:22 p.m., German bombers set the whole inner city of Rotterdam ablaze, killing 30,000 of its inhabitants.", 05/14/1940
 * ROTTERDAM PYRE for 30,000 Australian Associated Press]

There are reliable sources that claim that the figure of 30,000 was an Allied propaganda figure:
 * "Allied propaganda promptly estimated the civilian death toll at 20,000 to 30,000" (The Rise of the Wehrmacht: Vol. 1 229 by Samuel W. Mitcham (2008)).

it is not surprising that these sorts of figures were propagated and believed as the world fully expected there to be these sorts of death rates in the period leading up to the war--and presumably in the early months of the war--because that is what the experts and the popular media had all predicted would happen through the 1930s ("The bomber will always get through" etc)

-- PBS (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The existing citation "Hinchcliffe 2000" has been broken for over a year - there is no such work listed on the page. A claim of "gross exaggeration for propaganda purposes" needs quite strong citation, it is a world away from an over-estimate based on expert predictions. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is such a work listed on the article page but it is likely that the date is mismatched. Hinchcliffe (1996). It is only obvious because I marked it as such, it really needs an editor who has the book to check which is the correct date. -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Hinchcliffe 1996 is not Hinchcliffe 2000, and cannot be assumed to be. Find a proper source for the claims. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It may well be the same source it needs an editor to check it, I did not say that it can be assumed to be. It is a "proper source" just mis-dated. As to proper source I found the above in about 5 minutes and did not bother to look further, as clearly the gist of the statement is true. -- PBS (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, "2000" is not a plausible typo for "1996". What you have said above would support the 30,000 figure being a good-faith over-estimate based on what you describe as expert predictions. That is very different in tone and meaning to a gross over exaggeration for propaganda purposes! DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * PBS, kindly read WP:OR. Whether you think the event was exaggerated or not is quite simply of no importance, what matters is if any WP:RS sources say so. See belowJeppiz (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The citation should have been changed to the existing Hinchcliffe 1996 reference and tagged with verify source instead. Propaganda on all sides was known to play with numbers to show the 'good' side better than the 'bad' side. In Guernica the common reported death toll was over 1700 but recent research is at 800 (Soviet) down to 250-300. Really funny to assume they counted all the claimed 30k dead bodies within some hours just for the daily news of the next morning. I really don't like to play this death toll game but we can't remove that statement (especially with that way off comment) without any indication this death toll may be inflated by propaganda. Even nl wiki just has 650-900, de wiki has 800-900, all backed by at least one reference.--Denniss (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So, if we don't have a citation we should just grab another one that's been used elsewhere and stick a verify tag on? No, we really can't do that. The ref given was broken for over a year. To replace an old, broken, citation with a request for a proper one is good practice. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very much possible this wrong year was just a typo so verify source is the way to go. Even today you can't count that many dead bodies within the short timeframe this news was spread all over the world. --Denniss (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)--Denniss (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No-one is suggesting that it was a count - as I mentioned aboive, there is a world of difference between deliberate exaggeration for propaganda, and a good-faith estimate based on (in your words) expert predictions. To assume that a citation to a work that does not appear to exist is actually meant to be one to a work published four years earlier is a leap of faith we should not be making. Find a citation to support the claim! Please do, no-one is trying to stop you putting anything into the article that you can back up with a citation to a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic writing, unverifiable claims, WP:POV and WP:OR
User PBS is repeatedly inserting the following sentence into the article "Western news agencies grossly exaggerated the event for propaganda purposes, portraying Rotterdam as a city mercilessly destroyed by terror bombing without regard to civilian life, with 30,000 dead lying under the ruins". There are numerous problems with the sentence. User PBS does not provide any verifiable WP:RS source for any of these claims. Despite claiming in edit summaries that "there are lots of reliable sources", user PBS fails to provide a single source and just keep reverting to a version with a broken source, and one that may not meet WP:RS requirements. The current sentence is vague, unenclyclopaedic and not properly sourced, and should be removed unless proper sources for each of its claims can be provided.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Which are these "Western news agencies"?
 * According to whom did these unknown agencies "grossly exaggerate the event"?
 * According to whom was this for propaganda purposes?


 * @Jeppiz: I have not repeatedly inserted it, I have reverted your removal of it not one but twice without following you discussing your removal per the BRD cycle. Look above in this section for the answer to your questions, all done with reliable sources before you made your second reversal. As to the source being broken, it is I who highlighted the discrepancy in the dates, the obvious thing to do is find out which date is incorrect and fix it rather than deleting the citation. As a matter of course if you remove a short citation don't you usually clean up the references section as well if the long citation is not used to support any other text?


 * "unverifiable claims" has a specific meaning on in WP:V have you reconciled the Hinchcliffe 2000/1996 sources so that you know that source does not very the claim. If not how do you know that the claim is unverifiable?


 * Before you, made the deletion did you make any effort to find out if there are any other sources that back up the sentence? -- PBS (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @PBS: First of all, kindly stop editing my talk page posts. I asked three very specific questions, you did not anwer a single one of them. Instead of repeating "there are sources", start providing sources. I do want to keep good WP:FAITH but your current behavior does not suggest sincere intentions. This is not a matter of right or wrong (please see WP:TRUTH) but of not making unverified claims. If you want to have those claims in the article, then the onus is on you, not me, to provide sources.Jeppiz (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the my fist post about this issue if not: here it is. Are those not sources that answer your questions? Here are some additional ones:
 * Page 110 Deterrence Before Hiroshima: The Airpower Background of Modern Strategy by George H. Quester (1986)
 * Page 17 (PDF 22) AU/SCHOOL/080/1998-04 Air War Collage, Air University: Inflated by air common perceptions of civilian casualites from bombing by James S. Corum (1998)
 * Page 90-91 in Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden by Marshall DeBruhl (2010)
 * I am not defending the precise wording in the sentence by the information contain within the sentence is well worth keeping because it is well known and well supported in reliable sources. Perhaps now that I have answered your questions for a second time, you will now do me the courtesy of answering mine. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (after e/c) - where a contentious statement is, as in this case, unsupported by a ref then it is not up to the person removing it to try to find refs. You want the sentence in? Then you go and find reliable sources to support it. Don't guess that it might be in another source that you have not checked. It is now properly tagged as needing a citation - if you can find one then great, add it! DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What is contentious about the statement? It was supported by the reference. I have already given a number of possible sources above before I made the first revert. What about the citations above? -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It was not supported by a reference. It is untrue and clearly untrue to anyone acting in good faith to claim it was supported by a reference that did not exist. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to link a load of history here unless I have to - but the contentious claim was inserted by a disruptive, and currently indef-blocked editor who amongst other things was called out several times for misrepresenting or misusing sources. Even when first added in 2009 it did not have a valid citation, and it has never had a valid citation since. In my reading up on the history of this article and that editor it became very clear that his one consistent and loyal defender in the past was someone who is now objecting to the removal of the sentence.
 * As the sentence has never been cited properly in over 4 years, and has spent over a year with a "citation broken" tag on it, I shall be removing it in one week's time if no reliable and verifiable source has been found to support it by then. I would strongly advise any editor intent on retaining it to spend the week trying to find reliable sources. DuncanHill (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Are the sources PBS has given above (Grayling etc) acceptable? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well? -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Welll what? DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well what is the answer GLs question? -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Graeme, if PBS thought they were acceptable then I'm sure he would have added them. I haven't had time to check them all yet, but of course, once they are in the article they can be checked by lots more people than will see this talk page. I welcome scrutiny, and improvement, of any and all references on this article. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed those sources here after a quick scan of possible sources, and have not claimed that they are the most suitable, they were intended to show that the sentence is not unsupported by other reliable sources. They are intended to be a sample for the start of a discussion to see whether other editors think that such sources are suitable and that hopefully other editors will also research the issue and provide their own. GL has asked a reasonable question. Why don't you take the time to check them and then we can discuss it further and hopefully you will take the time to look for others which we can also discuss. On my talk page you accuse me of ownership and yet here you seem to be encouraging me to make unilateral edits, which course of action would you prefer me to follow? -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You seemed above, with your "Well?" comment to be demanding an immediate response, obviously I misinterpreted that. I would prefer you to find reliable, verifiable, sources and add them to the article. I would also prefer that you did not insist on the inclusion of uncited contentious wording that appears to contradict your own comments on this talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The simplest solution is to check the original source. So I have ordered a second hand copy through Amazon for the cost of a penny. The suppler says it will be sent Monday or Tuesday so it should be with me before the end of the week. DuncanHill why have you removed the request for a full citation request from Holland at war against Hitler this edit, it needs location and/or publisher and/or ISBN to be a full citation, without that information there is no way to identify the edition (US or Commonwealth hardback or paperback--all of which can affect pagination). -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Until a page number is added, the edition is irrelevant. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is one and the same thing both page number and publisher are needed to complete the citation. It would appear very petty to demand a page number and then when that has been provided, only then ask for more information for the long citation. Let us suppose that a person has found the information in a library and notes the page number. It is unreasonable to ask them after they have returned to go back to the library and find out the additional information, so it is better and more reasonable to ask for all the information simultaneously even though the citation is split into a short and long component -- just as one would if the inline citation was an embedded long citation. -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The splitting of citations into two does make life much harder for both readers and editors, I agree with you about that. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not state that "splitting of citations into two does make life much harder for both readers and editors" nor do I think it true, and it does not address the issue now I have explain why it is desirable of whether you are going to restore the request for a full citation which you have removed, or if you will remove it again if someone else restores it. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think a citation currently in the article needs to be improved then please tag it appropriately, with an explanatory edit summary. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I did! Back in January 2013 (see this edit). You have just removed the entry I put in, so why not revert that part of your most recent edit that removed my insertion of an appropriate tag? That way people are less likely to accuse me of ownership of the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I linked the author. I am not going to be your meatpuppet and carry out edits on your behalf. If you think it should be tagged, then tag it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The provides sources are not enough, no. "Grossly overstated" is a strong claim not found in the sources provided. And whether it was intentional propaganda or not would need good sourcing, not just finding someone who may have said so (which could be WP:FRINGE though I'm not saying it is in this case. We simply do not know.) There's a common tendency even today that the first reports of a disaster can contain estimates that are either too low or too high. Estimating the correct number of victims take some time even in peacetime.Jeppiz (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see that you have moved away from stating that the facts are unverifiable. No one has defended the current wording just that fact that it was a product of Allied propaganda. The precise wording can be change, but if you only complaint now is over the phrase "Grossly overstated" it easily be changes to "overstated" but how much was it overstated? We could write "overstated by a ratio of 33 to one" which is factually accurate (30,0000/900 is a ratio of 33 to one) but clumsy. A ratio of 33 to one is three times that grosly exaggerated claim which Goebel's used for the bombing of Dresden (200,000/20,000). So if Rotterdam was not a gross exaggeration, was it it a slight exaggeration, or tiny a exaggeration, or a small exaggeration, or a large exaggeration? -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We keep coming back to the same thing. You do not seem satisfied to report what the sources say, it seems as if you necessarily want to add your own view of it. The fact is that the actual number of victims was much smaller than first reported. That we can easily say. Then you keep changing between "grossly overstated", or "A ratio of 33 to one" or "three times that grosly exaggerated claim which Goebel's [sic!] used". We do not need to say any of those things, nor use the word propaganda or claim it was deliberate, until it is established in WP:RS sources that that was the case. Are there any actual historians on WWII who have said so? What is the view of the established experts in the field? Cherrypicking sources to find those that suit one view is easy enough with Google, which is precisely why we have the policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.Jeppiz (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

changing "Western news agencies grossly exaggerated the event for propaganda purposes" to "Dutch and British sources informed the public through Allied and international new media" is unacceptable and propaganda in itself. if you like it or not but the bombing was inside the war zone and on a defended city. so it was legal by international law (hague treaties and roosevelts appeal) allied propaganda exaggerated the number of killed civilians by 5000% and used that as an excuse to strategically bomb germany. they also lied about rotterdam being an open city which it clearly wasn't with dutch and german troops having a battle inside the city. I know that dutch and possibly others feel very strong about all this (even though you should get over yourself, it's not your battle) the historic facts should not be replaced by allied war time propaganda and white washing. Swunt (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How to edit - a guide for the perplexed.
If you think a reference needs improving, then tag it appropriately. If you think something in the text needs a citation, then tag it appropriately. If you have a reliable, verifiable source for something, then add it as a reference. If you don't know how to do any of these then ask, politely, here or at the Help Desk. Don't demand that others carry out your edits for you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @DuncanHill: I think that your removal of page 90 from a source I have introduced is inappropriate. So please follow your own advise and "tag it appropriately" then we can discuss it further and decide it the page number should be removed. Notice that like my previous request this is to revert an edit you have made not "[a] demand that others carry out your edits for you.". This is particularly pertinent as you have accused me of ownership of this article and so I would prefer not to revert you edits and have you accuse me of ownership again. The reason why page 90 is relevant is because of the last paragraph on that page which starts "Many so called historical truths begin life..." -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That passage is about the Coventry Blitz, it has nothing to do with this article. DuncanHill (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A citation ought to cover enough information to frame the summary in the Wikipedia article. In this case the source mentions the Rotterdam Blitz to help explain how the British used propaganda to describe the Coventry Blitz. As such I think it helps to put the comments on Rotterdam into context by citing the whole passage. Thanks to your offer I will now reinstall the citation to include page 90. -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not mean that I don't give a shit about the reference - I care very much about references, and your abuse of them. What I don't give a shit about is the edit summary you had a hissy fit over. Just as you willfully misrepresent references, now you willfully misrepresent what I have said. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote "". I was taking you up on your offer. -- PBS (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hooton
I'm very concerned with the reliability of this article on the author "E. R. Hooton". I can barely find any of his books, one of his books is registered as written by a "Teddy Hooton", there is no mention anywhere about his qualifications, and his claims in this article are very dubious. He has, among others things, claimed that only 30,000 people became homeless. The general consensus is, as far as I know, around 85,000. Also odd are the claims that the Dutch had so many fighter aircraft. Were they all effortlessly destroyed? Where is the battle? This needs to be investigated. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article E. R. Hooton (which you provide above) has a list of published books. I have not looked at all of them, but I looked in the world cat at every other book in the last and they appear to exist. The publishers of the two volumes here appear to be reliable publishers: Arms & Armour Press and Ian Allan Publishing. That at least two of his publications were for Jane's Information Group suggests that he either an academic specialising in weapon systems or was a recently retired armed forces annalist -- it would be unheard of a Jane's publication being authored by an amateur. One of his co-authored papers is also cited by Lawrence Freedman (see here) and he appears to be a cited author in Google Scholar. I have found one interview with him:
 * ""E.R. (Ted) Hooton has been a journalist for 40 years and a defence journalist for about 25 years. He has written numerous articles on military history and three highly regarded books on the history of the Luftwaffe – ‘The Luftwaffe – A Study in Air Power 1933-1945’ (2010) ‘Phoenix Triumphant: The Rise and Rise of the Luftwaffe’ (1992) and ‘Eagle in Flames: The Fall of the Luftwaffe’ (1997) as well as contributing to several others. He has also written a detailed history of air operations over the Western Front, ‘War above the Trenches – Air Power and the Western Front Campaigns 1916-1918’ (2010). Tattered Flag Press recently discussed his latest book with him. ..."."


 * -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)