Hitler declares he will not bomb English cities.

[Geon]

This occurred to me last night as I was preparing for bed.

Assume that Hitler - who actually seems to have greatly admired the British - makes a declaration shortly after the Battle of Britain starts. Namely, the Luftwaffe will not deliberately target British cities as long as the RAF does not target German cities. The idea here is that Hitler hopes to make propaganda points with the British people that this war is not aimed at them directly.

I know we're talking about the same Hiter who by this point has reduced both Warsaw and Rotterdam to rubble but for the sake of argument let's assume that for once Hitler keeps his word. There are no attacks on British cities from September through December of 1940. Instead, Goering is told to keep bombing RAF airfields and related targets. Does this change anything for the war short term and long term?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

This occurred to me last night as I was preparing for bed.

Assume that Hitler - who actually seems to have greatly admired the British - makes a declaration shortly after the Battle of Britain starts. Namely, the Luftwaffe will not deliberately target British cities as long as the RAF does not target German cities. The idea here is that Hitler hopes to make propaganda points with the British people that this war is not aimed at them directly.

I know we're talking about the same Hiter who by this point has reduced both Warsaw and Rotterdam to rubble but for the sake of argument let's assume that for once Hitler keeps his word. There are no attacks on British cities from September through December of 1940. Instead, Goering is told to keep bombing RAF airfields and related targets. Does this change anything for the war short term and long term?

Assuming Hitler keeps his word is the first problem.

There's also the point that bombing accuracy, especially at night, was terrible in 1940. This means that bombing a port, a factory, a military camp also inevitably means bombing the nearby towns, cities etc [1]. Since cities are being bombed, retaliation will be ordered.

In short, the Battle of Britain entails civilian casualties and bombing of towns and cities irrespective of the wishes of the bomber crews and politicians.

[1] I doubt my great aunt's house was a more important target target than the docks, which were about 5km away, but it was nonetheless damaged during a raid. A look at more recent examples of precision bombing suggests that the target gets hit more reliably than in WW2 but that civilian casualties are still common.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

This occurred to me last night as I was preparing for bed.

Assume that Hitler - who actually seems to have greatly admired the British - makes a declaration shortly after the Battle of Britain starts. Namely, the Luftwaffe will not deliberately target British cities as long as the RAF does not target German cities. The idea here is that Hitler hopes to make propaganda points with the British people that this war is not aimed at them directly.

I know we're talking about the same Hiter who by this point has reduced both Warsaw and Rotterdam to rubble but for the sake of argument let's assume that for once Hitler keeps his word. There are no attacks on British cities from September through December of 1940. Instead, Goering is told to keep bombing RAF airfields and related targets. Does this change anything for the war short term and long term?

That happened OTL except for a public declaration. Hitler forbade Goring from bombing British civilians and subsequently, cities with no military importance.

Goring and the Luftwaffe followed the order to a T, however, given that most military targets were situated inside or around cities, it took one mistake/badly aimed bombing run from a He 111 to give Churchill the justification to bomb German cities following the death of (I think the number is 9? Forgot the specifics) a few British civilians on the outskirts of London near a church, which was near a refinery I think or some other strategic target. Churchill and co realized early that the killing of civilians was most likely an accident but used the chance as justification.

 

[thezerech]

The realistic version of this question is what if the Germans don't try the blitz and instead try to continue to focus on primarily military targets, which has been asked a fair bit.

 

[FasterThanRaito]

The British will raid Berlin, resulting in reprisals against London. The words of Nazis mean nothing, and nothing ends up different.

If the Nazis refuse to participate in a Battle of Britain in the first place and not react to British attacks, that is a new scenario but is ASB in Nazis no longer acting like Nazis…

 

[Navigator]

If the Nazis refuse to participate in a Battle of Britain in the first place and not react to British attacks, that is a new scenario but is ASB in Nazis no longer acting like Nazis…

My interpretation of the OP's question is 'WI the Luftwaffe continue the original plan of attacking RAF and Chain Home stations, instead of shifting to London's docklands?'

The BoB was all about air superiority over Sussex, Kent and the Channel; which the Germans needed prior to the unmentionable aquatic mammal and which the British needed to preserve the defence of the realm. There were no 'British attacks' until one lost and ill-disciplined aircrew jettisoned bombs on London thinking that they were over the estuary north of Sheerness.

Biggin Hill, Kenley and Tangmere were on the point of having to evacuate before the docklands became the main target. If the squadrons based at those locations had withdrawn north of the Isis/Thames, the Luftwaffe would have achieved local air superiority and British maritime activity would have become far more hazardous. That wouldn't have kept the water creature alive, as the equipment available in the French ports to support such an undertaking really wasn't suitable for the job. What would have happened next is that precision raids on Portsmouth, Dover and Chatham dockyards would have been undertaken with the bomber crews more confident in their survival than in the OTL. If both the RAF and RN withdrew their forces from the southeastern corner of England, the Germans would have felt emboldened and continued probing attacks rather than meekly accepting a stalemate.

Whether that would have delayed either the Atlantic Wall or the march to the east is conjecture that a credible TL could be built upon.

 

[thaddeus]

if the KM was waging a more successful naval war against GB (better functioning torpedoes, magnetic mines ready en masse earlier) and/or the LW had some LRMP aircraft and more on the way? Hitler could make a superfluous and self-serving declaration.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Assuming Hitler keeps his word is the first problem.

There's also the point that bombing accuracy, especially at night, was terrible in 1940. This means that bombing a port, a factory, a military camp also inevitably means bombing the nearby towns, cities etc [1]. Since cities are being bombed, retaliation will be ordered.

In short, the Battle of Britain entails civilian casualties and bombing of towns and cities irrespective of the wishes of the bomber crews and politicians.

[1] I doubt my great aunt's house was a more important target target than the docks, which were about 5km away, but it was nonetheless damaged during a raid. A look at more recent examples of precision bombing suggests that the target gets hit more reliably than in WW2 but that civilian casualties are still common.

When, not if, the inevitable cock up happens, as it did, this is massive propaganda coup for the British. Not only are civilians being murdered in their beds, but Hitler has yet again gone back on his word.

 

[oberdada]

Going after military targets in Britain first, would have been the better strategy.

As far as I know, the accuracy for bombings under ideal conditions was something like 100 meters.

So if this really becomes the new strategy, cities like Coventry will definitely suffer less.


The potential counter strike with biological weapons prevented exactly that. So it might influence British ( and eventual US) bombing campaigns.


But the only possible POD for this to happen is if there is a realistic expectation of what the Luftwaffe actually can and cannot do and that it is practically impossible to win a war with airpower alone.
(NATO bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 was a very special case with limited war aims)

 

[Alex1guy]

I feel like the British would be like "Well if you wanna make it easy for us suckers..."

 

[Dorknought]

So not like Guernica, Wielun, Frampol, Warsaw, Rotterdam...

 

[Typho]

So not like Guernica, Wielun, Frampol, Warsaw, Rotterdam...

Rotterdam was an accident, an accident that really could be avoided if they just made the bluff with words only to begin with.

 

[Bellacinos]

Even if this scenario somehow led Germany to “win” BOB, what really changes in the long run? Sure Britain might lose a lot more planes and morale might be worse, but churchill wasn’t going to surrender and outside of literal ASBs carrying German soldiers to Britain, there’s no way the dreaded sea mammal
Gets green lit.

 

[Gudestein]

Even if this scenario somehow led Germany to “win” BOB, what really changes in the long run? Sure Britain might lose a lot more planes and morale might be worse, but churchill wasn’t going to surrender and outside of literal ASBs carrying German soldiers to Britain, there’s no way the dreaded sea mammal
Gets green lit.

It’s an interesting scenario. So local air superiority over parts of southern England yet the KM has to declare they really can’t do the lift yet and then the summer opportunity is gone. Quite the impasse. Someone has to declare a new strategy.

 

[Dorknought]

Rotterdam was an accident, an accident that really could be avoided if they just made the bluff with words only to begin with.

Or avoided by not pre-emptively invading a neutral country and then targeting a city to trigger surrender. Bombing Dublin would be (was) an accident.

 

[David Flin]

Rotterdam was an accident, an accident that really could be avoided if they just made the bluff with words only to begin with.

Accident means that one didn't intend to do something.

The bombs that fell on Rotterdam were intended to fall on Rotterdam.

 

[Typho]

Accident means that one didn't intend to do something.

The bombs that fell on Rotterdam were intended to fall on Rotterdam.

They were ordered to stop, which is why it was an accidental. But the fact that they gave orders for it in the first place was very criminal. Especially dumb as they knew leveraging the threat could get it surrendered anyway.

 

[Gillan1220]

Misses are inevitable considering the Luftwaffe targets are close to population centers. I'd be a miracle if this LW follows their orders and does not hit a city or a town within a week.

 

[yulzari1]

This would only have meaning within a German unilateral white peace. If Hitler can get Mussolini to do the same it leaves no place for Britain to prosecute the war. The status quo would become, de facto, de jure. The elephant in the room would become the Soviet Union.

 

[The Wooksta!]

Why would anyone in the UK trust Hilter? He's already proven that his word is meaningless, why would these "assurances" be any different?