Bomber boys - bbc one

[JG52Krupi]

Hey dudes,

Just saw a trailer for a documentary on bomber crews that is on tonight at 9:00 on bbc one... might have to check it out.

Looks like you will get to see a lot of Lancaster action :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01byv2g

[PeterPanPan]

Thanks for the reminder. Looking forward to this one. PPP

[lensman1945]

Thanks for the heads up...should be good :grin:

[Sternjaeger II]

yup, it's on my record list :)

[Sternjaeger II]

Very very good show,and surely an unbiased one, well done to BBC et al

[JG52Uther]

Argh missed it. Will have to get it on iplayer.

[PeterPanPan]

Was great, very well done. Sure to be repeated.

[Sternjaeger II]

Argh missed it. Will have to get it on iplayer.

Defo worth it, still not quite clear why the McGregor bros get all the fun though ;-)

Did anybody see the one on the Spitfire?

[JG52Krupi]

Yeah, jammy gits!

I am not jealous at all ;)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Missed it completely. Anyone know if it's to be repeated or will I have to watch it on i-player?

Edit: Just watched on i-player.

Superb.

[fruitbat]

Missed it completely. Anyone know if it's to be repeated or will I have to watch it on i-player?

I'm sure it will be repeated, but its on i player.

Its a good watch to.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I'm sure it will be repeated, but its on i player.

Its a good watch to.

Just watched it on i-player.

Excellent. And so's this;

http://www.bombercommand.com/

Oh, and Krupi, thanks for the heads up. Wouldn't've known about it at all but for the post! Cheers. ;)

[fruitbat]

Just watched it on i-player.

Excellent. And so's this;

http://www.bombercommand.com/

Thats been far to long coming imo. shameful really.

[Sternjaeger II]

Thats been far to long coming imo. shameful really.

Totally agree. As the RAF vet said in the documentary: "too little and above all too late".

[335th_GRAthos]

Very beautiful documentary!!!!

Thanks for the heads up Kruppi! :)

~S~

[JG52Uther]

Finally saw it on iplayer.Excellent programme!

[335th_GRAthos]

I am aware that it is not relevant in this thread but, are you guys aware of the Discovery channel JETSTREAM series (Canadian Air Force Fighter Training)?


~S~

[robtek]

Far from diminishing the efforts of any allied soldier who died fighting nationalsocialism, i find it very disturbing, to see this part of the RAF, which most prominent actions were, especially in the hindsight, acts of terrorism, getting a memorial.

[Sternjaeger II]

Far from diminishing the efforts of any allied soldier who died fighting nationalsocialism, i find it very disturbing, to see this part of the RAF, which most prominent actions were, especially in the hindsight, acts of terrorism, getting a memorial.

I understand the mixed feelings, but you know, in the end of the day one has to think of it for what it is, a celebration of those brave guys who were asked to go do a job which wasn't great and that was deadly serious. Should we differentiate because they were sent to fly a Lancaster instead of a Spitfire? No, and I don't think the intent is to celebrate the deaths they caused, but their bravery and courage, their will to fight for their country.

The price of Total War is that we're all involved, if anything I would like to see the Germans doing the same for their fallen and forgotten soldiers of both wars, all in all those poor ** were only obeying orders, it's not like they had much of a choice.

IF there was a memorial for Bomber Harris, on the other hand, I'd be quite annoyed..

[robtek]

The better idea, imo, would have been a RAF memorial.

[Sternjaeger II]

The better idea, imo, would have been a RAF memorial.

there's plenty of RAF memorials, but none dedicated to the "bomber boys".

[whoarmongar]

Are there any memorials to the German U Boat crews who died in WWII ? Arnt they in a similar situation to the RAF bomber crews. The RAF bomber crews suffered a terrible loss rate during the war,possibly the most dangerous job of any in the British military, and yet because of the misguided way in which they were used, and the terrible civilian losses caused by area bombing their valour was never officially recognised.
The UBoat crews are in a similar situation, they also suffered massive losses, they were hated and feared by the allies, and the indescriminate sinking of shipping was considered "illegal" at the time.
Both the UBoat and the Bomber were considered war winning weapons at the time,and in retrospect (isnt hindsight a wonderfull thing) they could have been.
Germany never had enough UBoats in the early war years,and in later years allied numbers,technology and knowhow decisively defeated the UBoat threat.
Britain devoted a very high percentage of her war effort to the bomber fleet. Yet Harris showed a lack of imagination and an inflexible attitude as to where to use this huge bomber weapon.

The Lancaster bomber was not the most succesful British bomber. Four merlin engines, seven crew and all that effort to build that magnificent aircraft and they made about seven trips before being lost or written off, all to indescriminatly scatter some bombs somewhere in Germany, what a waste. the most efficient British bomber of WWII was the mosquito, its survival rate was very high and it was a lot cheaper to make, it also benefitted from having a smaller crew and could be a lot more precise on hitting specific targets.

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, it's about celebrating the men.

[robtek]

As a matter of fact there is a U-Boat memorial site for both wars at Laboe, close to Kiel.

But i think that that bombers and U-Boats in their roles aren't comparable.

There is no memorial for the Luftwaffe, though. They were also misguided by their leaders. :D

[PeterPanPan]

IF there was a memorial for Bomber Harris, on the other hand, I'd be quite annoyed..

I'm afraid you are going to be annoyed ... http://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/bomber-harris

PPP

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm afraid you are going to be annoyed ... http://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/bomber-harris

PPP

didn't know about that one, and frankly the description on that page talks for itself. As far as I'm concerned that's even more offensive to all the "bomber boys" who never lived to see a memorial dedicated to them, but had a statue of the man who send him to be slaughtered.

Harris was a stubborn, vengeful individual whose tactics were completely wrong and caused the death of thousands of people on both sides for his distorted ideas; celebrating him with a statue is definitely out of place.. I wonder who had the idea to erect a statue on his name.

[Hood]

didn't know about that one, and frankly the description on that page talks for itself. As far as I'm concerned that's even more offensive to all the "bomber boys" who never lived to see a memorial dedicated to them, but had a statue of the man who send him to be slaughtered.

Harris was a stubborn, vengeful individual whose tactics were completely wrong and caused the death of thousands of people on both sides for his distorted ideas; celebrating him with a statue is definitely out of place.. I wonder who had the idea to erect a statue on his name.

There is no reason why he should not have a statue. War is war and for centuries it hasn't been confined to battlefields or strict rules of engagement. Every individual of an enemy state is a combatant.

WW2 is the best example of "total war" and Harris did his job well. An unpleasant and tragic job, certainly, but in war you need the ruthless b*stards to give the orders.

[arthursmedley]

.. I wonder who had the idea to erect a statue on his name.

The 7500 members of the Bomber Command Association (ex RAF aircrew) raised the money themselves to erect a statue to their chief.

[Sternjaeger II]

There is no reason why he should not have a statue. War is war and for centuries it hasn't been confined to battlefields or strict rules of engagement. Every individual of an enemy state is a combatant.

WW2 is the best example of "total war" and Harris did his job well. An unpleasant and tragic job, certainly, but in war you need the ruthless b*stards to give the orders.

..well according to your theory we should have a statue for Himmler, since he did his job quite well too :rolleyes:

it is a known fact that the area bombing idea was a bad idea, which cost not only innocent lives and RAF aircrews, but caused a lot of losses and great expenditures even after the war. It is also a fact that it's not because of area bombing that the war ended, it was just a tragic waste.

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general ;)

[fruitbat]

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general ;)

Better than you i'd wager.

[Sternjaeger II]

The 7500 members of the Bomber Command Association (ex RAF aircrew) raised the money themselves to erect a statue to their chief.

apparently it was the "Bomber Harris Trust". I think it talks for itself, defending the indefensible..

[Sternjaeger II]

Better than you i'd wager.

I'm no general, and unlike you I keep national pride and military history well separated, but anyway I'm sure you heard of Market-Garden..

[fruitbat]

I'm no general, and unlike you I keep national pride and military history well separated, but anyway I'm sure you heard of Market-Garden..

Also heard of El Alemain. National pride has nothing to do with it.

Not going to dispute market garden was a failure because in patently was, but not going to conveniently ignore what came before as you have subjectively done yet again with your wealth of knowledge on military history.

No general is perfect, Rommel whoever, all have successes and failures, given enough time in command.

[fruitbat]

apparently it was the "Bomber Harris Trust". I think it talks for itself, defending the indefensible..

The Bomber Harris trust, were as Arthur said, ex RAF airman from bomber command, that is fact, whatever your personal views or mine are on it.

[Sternjaeger II]

Also heard of El Alemain. National pride has nothing to do with it.

Not going to dispute market garden was a failure because in patently was, but not going to conveniently ignore what came before as you have subjectively done yet again with your wealth of knowledge on military history.

No general is perfect, Rommel whoever, all have successes and failures, given enough time in command.

well... El-Alamein was his victory, but an easy one, considering he was running against an exhausted and over-stretched Afrikakorps and Italian Army, both without supplies and significant air support by the end of the North African campaign, and fighting against an enemy who had bigger numbers in terms of troops and logistic support. Everything else after that was a total failure (Sicily/Anzio landings, D-Day/Caen, Market-Garden).

Perfection doesn't belong to human being, let alone Generals, but the balance between success and failure makes the difference between the legendary good and bad ones.. and remaining on the WW2 theme, I'm sure you heard about Patton.. that was a General.

[Sternjaeger II]

The Bomber Harris trust, were as Arthur said, ex RAF airman from bomber command, that is fact, whatever your personal views or mine are on it.

I'm not so sure about the numbers of this Bomber Harris trust, there isn't much info on it. I don't doubt it had a part of ex RAF airmen supporting it, but this doesn't mean that they are right or that their scope is a legit one.

You still have Nazi vets that support their wartime creed, but this doesn't make them right, does it?

Anyway, going back on topic, the whole argument was that as much as I accept and think it's fair to celebrate the bravery of RAF Bomber Command aircrews, I don't think Harris deserves all this celebration, if anything for his controversial and questionable tactics.

[fruitbat]

Anyway, going back on topic, the whole argument was that as much as I accept and think it's fair to celebrate the bravery of RAF Bomber Command aircrews, I don't think Harris deserves all this celebration, if anything for his controversial and questionable tactics.

Nor do i particularly, but you just assumed i did.

Best not to assume things you don't know, can make you look silly.

[Sternjaeger II]

Nor do i particularly, but you just assumed i did.

Best not to assume things you don't know, can make you look silly.

erm, I didn't assume anything, I just stated again what my opinion on the OT? :confused:

[Hood]

..well according to your theory we should have a statue for Himmler, since he did his job quite well too :rolleyes:

it is a known fact that the area bombing idea was a bad idea, which cost not only innocent lives and RAF aircrews, but caused a lot of losses and great expenditures even after the war. It is also a fact that it's not because of area bombing that the war ended, it was just a tragic waste.

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general ;)

You're just trolling with the Himmler comment so I won't rise to the bait.

You're also trolling with the Montgomery mention but for the record I do think that Montgomery was a great general.

I am not convinced it is a "known fact" that area bombing was a bad idea. There are arguments for and against. You're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.

It is illuminating that the existing Harris memorial was paid for by those that he commanded. Maybe those that did the actual job had/have the right take on things.

[Hood]

Double post

[Sternjaeger II]

You're just trolling with the Himmler comment so I won't rise to the bait. why? If total war means justifying the killing of innocents"for a good cause",does it matter how?


You're also trolling with the Montgomery mention but for the record I do think that Montgomery was a great general.

I am not convinced it is a "known fact" that area bombing was a bad idea. There are arguments for and against. You're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.

You surely have a different approach (and probably understanding) to military history. What makes you think of Montgomery as a great general exactly? And what are the valid arguments for area bombing?

It is illuminating that the existing Harris memorial was paid for by those that he commanded. Maybe those that did the actual job had/have the right take on things.

It is not still quite clear who are the members of this Trust, and I doubt he was too popular with the majority of the men he commanded..

[Hood]

why? If total war means justifying the killing of innocents"for a good cause",does it matter how?



You surely have a different approach (and probably understanding) to military history. What makes you think of Montgomery as a great general exactly? And what are the valid arguments for area bombing?


It is not still quite clear who are the members of this Trust, and I doubt he was too popular with the majority of the men he commanded..

You surely must understand the difference between attacking another soverign nation and the systematic extermination of anyone considered undesirable. Definite troll comment.

To use your own usual arguments, nothing you have said is evidence to support your opinions, just generalised comments. There is a theme of inviting arguments in order for them to be countered, but without any rational argument made to support your own views.

Back up your own arguments first and I'll respond, or let the argument die and the thread return to appreciation of a great programme. Your choice.

G'night.

[Sternjaeger II]

You surely must understand the difference between attacking another soverign nation and the systematic extermination of anyone considered undesirable. Definite troll comment.

well of course I do, your judgement is in hindsight though. If they won the war, who would be the hero and who would be the war criminal?

A controversial character like Harris, who caused the unnecessary death of thousands of civilians and RAF aircrew, all of this for a strategy that didn't actually win the war (it was actually argued in the Parliament that the disruption and damage caused by such bombings would have been an enormous problem to deal with once the war was over), is nothing to be celebrated with a statue, it's really in bad taste IMHO. Harris himself wouldn't probably have been too chuffed about it, there's a reason why he moved to South Africa until Churchill gave him the Baronet title, he knew that what he had done wasn't the best of strategies.. Now I'm not judging the man because I'm sure that being in such a position on such hard times must be the toughest role for a man, but in the meantime I think there's not a lot of room to celebrate his actions either.


To use your own usual arguments, nothing you have said is evidence to support your opinions, just generalised comments. There is a theme of inviting arguments in order for them to be countered, but without any rational argument made to support your own views.

Back up your own arguments first and I'll respond, or let the argument die and the thread return to appreciation of a great programme. Your choice.

G'night.

well, you asked for it. As we all know, Monty won El-Alamein because of the favourable odds he had (logistics, troops, exhausted enemy), unfortunately, unlike his predecessors, Monty chose not to follow up on his victory by pushing the Germans out of Africa immediately, waiting until May of 1943 to finally accomplish what should have been done months earlier.

But Egypt wasn’t Monty’s real problem. That came later, first with the over-planned and under-executed landings in Sicily (Patton’s forces beat Monty’s British Army to Messina even though they had twice as far to go), followed by his dismal attempt to capture Caen, France on D-Day(The city was not taken until July 18, 1944, six weeks after the initial landing).

Then there was Operation Markey Garden in September, 1944, the attempt to take three key bridges in Holland that would make a breakout into the Ruhr Valley possible. Great idea; just poorly implemented, the result being the surrender of 6,000 British paratroopers at Arnhem and a temporary stalemate that was to last until that next spring.

Is that "factual" enough for you?

[bongodriver]

Monty won El-Alamein because of the favourable odds he had (logistics, troops, exhausted enemy)

You underestimate the potential even a tired enemy has...remember the Battle of Britain.

Monty chose not to follow up on his victory by pushing the Germans out of Africa immediately

I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...

Then there was Operation Markey Garden in September, 1944, the attempt to take three key bridges in Holland that would make a breakout into the Ruhr Valley possible. Great idea; just poorly implemented, the result being the surrender of 6,000 British paratroopers at Arnhem and a temporary stalemate that was to last until that next spring.

Not strictly Monty's fault that German panzer units werent spotted nearby, it is perfectly forgiveable to have unanticipated results due to intel failiures, and that is the real reason the operation failed, bad implementation happened all the time throughout the war.

You clearly have a particular axe to grind against certain British leaders which seems to bias your contributions somewhat.

I have no particular love for that pompous orifice Monty myself but not everything he achieved can be discredited.

[PeterPanPan]

If they won the war, who would be the hero and who would be the war criminal?

Are you really saying heroes and villains are defined purely by the outcome of a given conflict, not by the conduct during the conflict? Really? If Nazi Germany had won the war would they have really been heroes? I think if I was being kind I would say your statement is too broad and oversimplified.

Area bombing sure was/is controversial. But it's so easy for us to have negative views of the action taken now from the comfort of our 70 year post war position. I am no military strategist, but, if those in command at the time truly believed that area bombing was the only way to win the war, then who are we (I'm talking as an Englishman) to argue? If all the options were properly considered and it was felt that allied defeat and the invasion/occupation of western Europe, including the UK, was inevitable/very likely without area bombing, then I don't have a problem with the decisions taken. War is a horrible thing - there is no way around it. We just need to understand that.

PPP out

[Sternjaeger II]

You underestimate the potential even a tired enemy has...remember the Battle of Britain.

Bongo, I'm afraid you underestimate that soldiers that drink the water from their vehicles' radiators or that let themselves die in the desert are signs of an exhaustion beyond any offensive potential. It was a hard battle, but despite its mobility it became another war of friction, where who has the support and logistics on their back is more likely to win.


I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...
[quote]
bad weather in Africa for 6 months.. really? Try and tell that to the guys in the Ardennes.. :rolleyes:

[quote]
Not strictly Monty's fault that German panzer units werent spotted nearby, it is perfectly forgiveable to have unanticipated results due to intel failiures, and that is the real reason the operation failed, bad implementation happened all the time throughout the war.

I'm sorry, but NO. First of all, he had the cheek to declare that Market-Garden was "90% successful" (the "10% failure" probably being the fact that they lost the chance to end the war by Xmas, 17k casualties among Allied troops and last but not leasts the thousands of civilians that died in Holland because of the ensuing famine the following winter..), second thing is that the competition with Patton had the best of him: Monty had this thing that when he needed to be cautious he was reckless, and when he could go he was too prudent.

You clearly have a particular axe to grind against certain British leaders which seems to bias your contributions somewhat.

No, I am just talking about controversial generals, the fact that they're both British is coincidental. I can mention you a lot of non British incompetent or controversial generals if you want me to: Adolf Hitler anyone? :rolleyes:

I have no particular love for that pompous orifice Monty myself but not everything he achieved can be discredited.

My opinion (which is shared by many, both now and back in the days) is that Montgomery was overrated, that's it. I'm not saying he didn't do what he had to do, but when left to organise important things his stubbornness got in the way and caused enormous damage.

[Sternjaeger II]

Are you really saying heroes and villains are defined purely by the outcome of a given conflict, not by the conduct during the conflict? Really? If Nazi Germany had won the war would they have really been heroes? I think if I was being kind I would say your statement is too broad and oversimplified.

erm.. is this a serious question? Do you think the Nazis went around thinking they were the bad guys? They were indoctrinated into a creed that was the only way for them, made of racial pride and will of revenge. Many dissented on Hitler's politics of course, but they either kept it for themselves or got in serious trouble. I'm not saying I don't think they were, but if you were a Nazi you would have ended up agreeing with the mass. The majority believed they were in the right, like any side to a war is, the "evil villains" are just James Bond movie stuff..

The "heroes of the Soviet Union" raping and pillaging on their way to Berlin, area bombing in Europe (done by both sides), atomic bombs, the war crimes committed by Tito in Jugoslavia.. the killing and raping done by Algerian troops whilst advancing in Italy..History is written by the winners, who wins is the good guy.

Think about it, Russia was our ally until 1945, then they went from being the good guys to our enemies, and it's not like their politics changed much until 1989..


Area bombing sure was/is controversial. But it's so easy for us to have negative views of the action taken now from the comfort of our 70 year post war position. I am no military strategist, but, if those in command at the time truly believed that area bombing was the only way to win the war, then who are we (I'm talking as an Englishman) to argue? If all the options were properly considered and it was felt that allied defeat and the invasion/occupation of western Europe, including the UK, was inevitable/very likely without area bombing, then I don't have a problem with the decisions taken. War is a horrible thing - there is no way around it. We just need to understand that.

PPP out

The decision of area bombing was a much controversial one and that didn't get approved on the first spot anyway, because many in the war cabinet argued that it would have been the same as going down to the same level of the Nazis. When it was eventually approved the USAAF firmly detached itself from such policy, saying they would have carried out their daylight operations of pinpoint bombing to damage factories and other strategic objectives (applying a peculiar double standard in 1945 with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. )

The deliberate bombing of civilian targets was in line with what the Germans did during the Blitz, a form of retaliation disguised as an offensive strategy to win the war, in a time where everybody was tired of the war and propaganda struggled to give positive news that would show there was a definite and effective way to end the war quickly.

Definitely the worst chapter of the RAF history, and again it can't be blamed on the men that executed their orders, but only on their commander and his insistent (as much as wrong) idea that area bombing would have won the war, instead of just being a mass murder.

[bongodriver]

Bongo, I'm afraid you underestimate that soldiers that drink the water from their vehicles' radiators or that let themselves die in the desert are signs of an exhaustion beyond any offensive potential. It was a hard battle, but despite its mobility it became another war of friction, where who has the support and logistics on their back is more likely to win.

So how exactly is the fact that the axis were denied supplies and reinforcements and overwhelmed by a superior force testament to Montgomery's total incompetence?

bad weather in Africa for 6 months.. really? Try and tell that to the guys in the Ardennes.. :rolleyes:

I never said 6 months.....where did I say 6 months? just like in many other conflicts nature sometimes nature throws in a curveball that changes proceedings to a degree, I was just under the impression a window of bad weather bought Rommel some time and in the end there was no need to make a decisive push....the rest of the war was practically on the back foot for the Axis by then.

I'm sorry, but NO. First of all, he had the cheek to declare that Market-Garden was "90% successful" (the "10% failure" probably being the fact that they lost the chance to end the war by Xmas, 17k casualties among Allied troops and last but not leasts the thousands of civilians that died in Holland because of the ensuing famine the following winter..), second thing is that the competition with Patton had the best of him: Monty had this thing that when he needed to be cautious he was reckless, and when he could go he was too prudent.

War is hell ain't it........
don't worry Stern...even I am a bit upset that we celebrate an oxygen thief like Monty, I would much prefer we had a more charismatic person in his place of history.

No, I am just talking about controversial generals, the fact that they're both British is coincidental. I can mention you a lot of non British incompetent or controversial generals if you want me to: Adolf Hitler anyone? :rolleyes:

Hitler wasn't a general....just a corporal with delusions of grandeur, shame you make little effort to mention some of these 'other' generals, your concentration on the British ones is telling.

My opinion (which is shared by many, both now and back in the days) is that Montgomery was overrated, that's it. I'm not saying he didn't do what he had to do, but when left to organise important things his stubbornness got in the way and caused enormous damage.

Many oppinions are always shared by many others....doesn't make them right or wrong, Montgomery being overrated is one I can share with you but not completely incompetent.

[Sternjaeger II]

So how exactly is the fact that the axis were denied supplies and reinforcements and overwhelmed by a superior force testament to Montgomery's total incompetence?

I don't think he was a total incompetent, he knew his stuff (which somehow makes him even worse), but El-Alamein was a bit unbalanced: it's like saying you're gonna play the world cup final against a formidable team who has no football boots and is one legged..


I never said 6 months.....where did I say 6 months? just like in many other conflicts nature sometimes nature throws in a curveball that changes proceedings to a degree, I was just under the impression a window of bad weather bought Rommel some time and in the end there was no need to make a decisive push....the rest of the war was practically on the back foot for the Axis by then.

Well that's how long they sat on their ar$e for. He lived on the glory of El-Alamein and didn't complete his job in North Africa.


War is hell ain't it........
don't worry Stern...even I am a bit upset that we celebrate an oxygen thief like Monty, I would much prefer we had a more charismatic person in his place of history.


I understand your sentiment.


Hitler wasn't a general....just a corporal with delusions of grandeur, shame you make little effort to mention some of these 'other' generals, your concentration on the British ones is telling.

well he was a general indeed unfortunately, and I can mention to you other bad generals: Rommel, Alexander, Gamelin, Graziani, Percival, Fredendall.. we also have the ones who won, but at insane costs in terms of lives (i.e. Stalin, Zhukov..).. if you want details on them let me know :)


Many oppinions are always shared by many others....doesn't make them right or wrong, Montgomery being overrated is one I can share with you but not completely incompetent.

as I said before, he wan't a complete incompetent, he was a stubborn man with an awful sense of timing and an ego the size of the British empire..

[bongodriver]

I don't think he was a total incompetent, he knew his stuff (which somehow makes him even worse), but El-Alamein was a bit unbalanced: it's like saying you're gonna play the world cup final against a formidable team who has no football boots and is one legged..

No not really...it's just like a regular football match and one side lost, you seem to be emphasising the entire North Africa campaingn on the second half, the first half was a mirror of your description with the allies being completely outclassed, just because Rommel wasn't completely taken out doesn't mean enough wasn't done.

I'm not sure your prejudice against amputees is very nice, Bader had no legs (lost before the war) and he became an Ace.

as I said before, he wan't a complete incompetent, he was a stubborn man with an awful sense of timing and an ego the size of the British empire..

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.

[DD_crash]

The deliberate bombing of civilian targets was in line with what the Germans did during the Blitz, a form of retaliation disguised as an offensive strategy to win the war, in a time where everybody was tired of the war and propaganda struggled to give positive news that would show there was a definite and effective way to end the war quickly.


If I remember correctly, didnt Goering say that Britain could be defeated by bombing? As this was all theory at the time (both the US and Britain both thought that bombing would be the way that future wars would be fought) it hadnt been proved either way. It could also be argued that the Blitz had the opposite effect that the German High Command wanted. Churchill knew that hadnt worked but thought that the RAF could do better. Also I wonder what the people who now say that the bombing policy was totally wrong would have done to take the war to Germany? Daylight raids by both the RAF and the US showed the price to be far too high. Even in daylight with no fighter or AAA I doubt if targets could be hit so I think that they had no choice but to do what they did. One thing that struck me was when the aircrews said that they could see their target as a red glow on the horizon whist still flying over England. On another note I do think that from late 1944 large scale raids were not needed.

[bongodriver]

with regard to the 'winners write history'.....well duh!

the point is if you take into account why the Allies ever got involved in the War and what was ultimately being fought for then without doubt the Allies were the 'good guys' irrespective of any individuals questionable ethics, we can separate the Allies into 2 groups, the Russians had their own part of the war that just happened to align with the US and Brits, this just defaulted them into being an ally, the West had no influence over how they chose to conduct their war, lend lease was not necessarily an endorsement of any conduct either.

[Sternjaeger II]

No not really...it's just like a regular football match and one side lost, you seem to be emphasising the entire North Africa campaingn on the second half, the first half was a mirror of your description with the allies being completely outclassed, just because Rommel wasn't completely taken out doesn't mean enough wasn't done.

well I have a different understanding of the war in Northern Africa: the turning point was at the very beginning, when Vichy France surrendered, leaving a void and space for the Allied invasion to storm in. Other factors like limited or no supplies from Europe, the breaking of the Ultra code and inferior numbers in terms of troops and air support meant that it would only have been a matter of time, especially after the Germans started concentrating their efforts in Barbarossa.


I'm not sure your prejudice against amputees is very nice, Bader had no legs (lost before the war) and he became an Ace.

ah come on man, it was just an example.. my grandpa was a partisan and a war amputee, so I doubt I'm prejudiced about the topic..

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.[/QUOTE]

yeah, let's just enjoy the moment ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

If I remember correctly, didnt Goering say that Britain could be defeated by bombing? As this was all theory at the time (both the US and Britain both thought that bombing would be the way that future wars would be fought) it hadnt been proved either way. It could also be argued that the Blitz had the opposite effect that the German High Command wanted. Churchill knew that hadnt worked but thought that the RAF could do better.

yep, and despite all this, Harris still thought that area bombing in late 1944 was the solution..


Also I wonder what the people who now say that the bombing policy was totally wrong would have done to take the war to Germany? Daylight raids by both the RAF and the US showed the price to be far too high. Even in daylight with no fighter or AAA I doubt if targets could be hit so I think that they had no choice but to do what they did. One thing that struck me was when the aircrews said that they could see their target as a red glow on the horizon whist still flying over England. On another note I do think that from late 1944 large scale raids were not needed.

I'm not saying that bombing was totally wrong. The total obliteration of Cologne, Dresden and other German cities on the other hand was unnecessary, since the invasion had already started and it was unstoppable.

[bongodriver]

well I have a different understanding of the war in Northern Africa: the turning point was at the very beginning, when Vichy France surrendered, leaving a void and space for the Allied invasion to storm in. Other factors like limited or no supplies from Europe, the breaking of the Ultra code and inferior numbers in terms of troops and air support meant that it would only have been a matter of time, especially after the Germans started concentrating their efforts in Barbarossa.

Bring whatever factors into it you like...the outcome of the conflict was due to how it was managed by both sides.

lets make a hypothetical boxing match between matched opponents, one guy looses ballance....at that instant he is disadvantaged, the other guy isn't guaranteed a victory, he might also slip attempting the deciding blow.....you can see what I'm trying to say can't you.

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

[fruitbat]

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

Lol.

[Sternjaeger II]

Bring whatever factors into it you like...the outcome of the conflict was due to how it was managed by both sides.

lets make a hypothetical boxing match between matched opponents, one guy looses ballance....at that instant he is disadvantaged, the other guy isn't guaranteed a victory, he might also slip attempting the deciding blow.....you can see what I'm trying to say can't you.

well, I do, but it's not entirely pertinent to the Northern Africa Campaign scenario.

Let me give you a better example and see what you think about it: Russian generals like Zhukov didn't win their battles because they were fine tacticians, they simply poured millions of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of vehicles onto the battlefield, crushing everything on their way. 20 million deads for the Great Patriotic War as they call it is a mind boggling number, but that's the price they were ready to pay for victory. Does this make them good generals?

Patton's and Monty's advance into mainland Europe was highly dependent on fuel availability, so much that they often strongly argued about who should get it first and even air bridges struggled to keep up with it.

Then more than ever, mobility of logistics was the key to victory. Germany was quite good at it, but as resources diminished, so did the fighting capability, so that's the scenario that developed in Africa, exacerbated by the strong weather factors.


it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

LOL :mrgreen:

I'm sorry if it comes out as a "I'm right, you're all wrong", but it surprises me how things that I give for granted in history (especially considering that I've done most of my history studying at a British university, and had a lot of work done on area bombing for a mega-presentation) are often either ignored or not considered valid, and put against non factual arguments, but usually national pride (and there's nothing wrong in national pride, it just doesn't have to get in the way of an objective observation of history).

[bongodriver]

Try not to go down the Nationalist route please.....I assure you it has nothing to do with it.

it just so happens I am only 1/4 english at best, my origins are oddly enough mostly from places with a historical tendency to be at odds with the British......try Boer and throw in a bit of German French and Irish and a large dolop of Russian.

Oh and I wasn't born in the UK either and I lived in Italy before coming here.

[Sternjaeger II]

Try not to go down the Nationalist route please.....I assure you it has nothing to do with it.

it just so happens I am only 1/4 english at best, my origins are oddly enough mostly from places with a historical tendency to be at odds with the British......try Boer and throw in a bit of German French and Irish and a large dolop of Russian.

Oh and I wasn't born in the UK either and I lived in Italy before coming here.

I wasn't referring to you regarding the nationalist route, it's more of a generic feedback I get sometimes, and this applies to every country.

Whereabouts in Italy? :)

[bongodriver]

I wasn't referring to you regarding the nationalist route, it's more of a generic feedback I get sometimes, and this applies to every country.

Whereabouts in Italy? :)

I lived in Bologna, initially in the city itself and then we moved into the hills in a place called Rastignano, I wen't to a catholic school in pianoro, I spoke Italian fluently (people thought i was a local kid) and have subsequently forgotten it completely, easy come easy go when youre a kid.

[Sternjaeger II]

I lived in Bologna, initially in the city itself and then we moved into the hills in a place called Rastignano, I wen't to a catholic school in pianoro, I spoke Italian fluently (people thought i was a local kid) and have subsequently forgotten it completely, easy come easy go when youre a kid.

ouch, catholic school with nuns?! :-?

I know Rastignano! We flew to an ultralight airfield nearby with the Tiggies once and had a great meal there, which was spoilt by the flight back: bouncy August afternoon flight back, I really struggled to keep all that yummy food in as soon as I gave control to my co-pilot :mrgreen:

[bongodriver]

ouch, catholic school with nuns?!

LOL....not quite that catholic, but Catholic enough for me to be excluded as a Satanic non-believer, the school dress was a black shirt with a white detachable collar, for some reason I wasn't allowed to wear the collar, I look at my old school photo and the look on my face is precious, a real sense of 'I wan't to kill you all damn you!', I was popular with the girlies though...hehe!

I know Rastignano! We flew to an ultralight airfield nearby with the Tiggies once and had a great meal there, which was spoilt by the flight back: bouncy August afternoon flight back, I really struggled to keep all that yummy food in as soon as I gave control to my co-pilot

Ah.....I didn't quite realise you are a fellow Tiggie pilot, how many hours? I haven't flown a Tiggie for about 10 years now (270 hours), I fly a Stearman for my vintage fix now.

[Sternjaeger II]

LOL....not quite that catholic, but Catholic enough for me to be excluded as a Satanic non-believer, the school dress was a black shirt with a white detachable collar, for some reason I wasn't allowed to wear the collar, I look at my old school photo and the look on my face is precious, a real sense of 'I wan't to kill you all damn you!', I was popular with the girlies though...hehe!



Ah.....I didn't quite realise you are a fellow Tiggie pilot, how many hours? I haven't flown a Tiggie for about 10 years now (270 hours), I fly a Stearman for my vintage fix now.

last time I flew one it was in 2005! I have some 350 under my belt (if memory serves!), then tried a Jungmann and fell in love with the thing!
The Tiggie was my first vintage plane experience, and a first love too, with all its quirkiness and the handling of a barn door :mrgreen: a good ol' gentle lady that can bite, but it's a pleasure to fly for a stroll above the countryside :)
I fly with a Stearman here too, another world, esp with the beefier engine, still not too sold about that cheeky torque though :mrgreen:

[bongodriver]

Yep Tiggers are wonderfull things....tops made out of rubber and bottoms made out of springs!.....particularily if you stuff up the landing and that well sprung udercarriage throws you back ito the air with zero speed....gotta love those innefective ailerons and rudder that stays locked in full deflection, have you tried a Canadian Tiggie yet? tailwheel is nice but those brakes are lethal.
haven't flown the jungman.....absolutely beautifull aircraft to look at, I must go and wink at Anna Walker and see if she will let me fly hers.
Stearman is just plain easy, I like the cheeky torque.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yep Tiggers are wonderfull things....tops made out of rubber and bottoms made out of springs!.....particularily if you stuff up the landing and that well sprung udercarriage throws you back ito the air with zero speed....gotta love those innefective ailerons and rudder that stays locked in full deflection, have you tried a Canadian Tiggie yet? tailwheel is nice but those brakes are lethal.
haven't flown the jungman.....absolutely beautifull aircraft to look at, I must go and wink at Anna Walker and see if she will let me fly hers.
Stearman is just plain easy, I like the cheeky torque.

one day I'll tell you the story of when my engine quit on top of a tumble at 1100ft ("remember, if your engine quits, your only chance is to nose it down and let the propeller windmill and start up again, but you need to be at 1000ft ground to get enough airspeed!") :mrgreen:

brakes can be lethal, but bleeding them can be even worse!!

The Jungmann is like a glove, a pilot's dream! Responsive, no slack stick, super fast, compact.. you feel like you can land it on top of a helipad!

[bongodriver]

brakes can be lethal, but bleeding them can be even worse!!

Hydraulic?....thats a new one, hydraulic brakes must be relatively nice, I'm used to the cable operated heel brakes....on or off and nothing between.

[Sternjaeger II]

Hydraulic?....thats a new one, hydraulic brakes must be relatively nice, I'm used to the cable operated heel brakes....on or off and nothing between.

they actually had a proper hub kit, they were quite good, if anything to slow on landing, although they can be dangerous.. tailskid is generally good to stop, but taxiing with a tailwheel is way better.

Never tried the cable brakes, and frankly I'm in no hurry to try them either ;)

[kendo65]

...
well he was a general indeed unfortunately, and I can mention to you other bad generals: Rommel, Alexander, Gamelin, .

... if you want details on them let me know :)
...


Sorry, can't help but ask. Why, in your opinion, was Rommel a bad general?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Hmm..... Also interested in Mr. Sternjaeger's opinion of Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/tag/operation-meetinghouse/

Here's another one.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217

[Sternjaeger II]

Sorry, can't help but ask. Why, in your opinion, was Rommel a bad general?

Rommell was an astute tactician, but not a good general: he didn't listen to more experienced colleagues (he deliberately and blatantly dismissed and ignored the suggestions of Italian generals during the North Africa campaign, who had a better understanding of logistics and artillery use), undermining his relationship with his Italian allies, who never thought much of him and didn't manage to coordinate their work efficiently in North Africa.

By the time he named Kesselrig as CinC of the Mediterranean based German Army it was too late, and never managed to efficiently coordinate the armed forces with the Allies.

So he lost that, he then screwed up big time in Northern France as you all know..

In addition to his stubbornness and arrogance, he deliberately didn't obey certain orders he received, and last but not least he tried to murder his leader.

So no, he wasn't a good general. An astute tactician as I said, a socialite, and a good man that understood that Nazism and Hitler were the real enemy, but not what you would normally define a good general.

[Sternjaeger II]

Hmm..... Also interested in Mr. Sternjaeger's opinion of Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/tag/operation-meetinghouse/

Here's another one.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217

A thing that we often forget nowadays is that the Americans had the same consideration of the Japanese that the Germans had of the Russians: Japanese code of conduct and fierceness didn't do themselves any favour, propaganda did the rest. Japanese were almost not considered human by most.

So whilst Germans might still have kept a sort of human side (all in all they had the same caucasian looks), Japanese were strongly mocked for their different looks. Only who fought against the Japanese learned the hard lesson that the Japanese were far from the clumsy, short sighted skinny wimps of the US propaganda.

Let's not forget that racism was still very strong in the '40s: white German POWs in the States were usually treated better than African American troops.

[fruitbat]

Rommell was an astute tactician, but not a good general: he didn't listen to more experienced colleagues (he deliberately and blatantly dismissed and ignored the suggestions of Italian generals during the North Africa campaign, who had a better understanding of logistics and artillery use), undermining his relationship with his Italian allies, who never thought much of him and didn't manage to coordinate their work efficiently in North Africa.

By the time he named Kesselrig as CinC of the Mediterranean based German Army it was too late, and never managed to efficiently coordinate the armed forces with the Allies.

So he lost that, he then screwed up big time in Northern France as you all know..

In addition to his stubbornness and arrogance, he deliberately didn't obey certain orders he received, and last but not least he tried to murder his leader.

So no, he wasn't a good general. An astute tactician as I said, a socialite, and a good man that understood that Nazism and Hitler were the real enemy, but not what you would normally define a good general.

Thanks Stern, thats just given me a good chuckle before turning in.

[Sternjaeger II]

Thanks Stern, thats just given me a good chuckle before turning in.

I don't understand where the humorous part is? :confused:

[ATAG_Dutch]

Fine.

But was General Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal' or was it his leaders Rooseveldt/Trueman, who sanctioned these actions? - As it was Churchill as Head of the War Cabinet, in consultation with the Air Ministry who defined the policy that Harris (as a good 'General') carried out to the best of his abilities?
It was only post Dresden that Churchill began to distance himself politically from the Area Bombing policy, in fear of his post war political reputation. So who was the 'War Criminal'? Churchill? You might as well say then that all the leaders of the victorious nations were 'war criminals'.

As (let's be honest), the only 'precision bombing' carried out by the USAAF in Europe was conducted by the lead bomber in the Group, as everyone else toggled the tit when the leader's Norden bombsight was on target and he dropped his bombs. They dropped when he did. They didn't queue up in single file. So the American daylight campaign was almost as 'indiscriminate' as was the night bombing. Or is the distinction a question of stated intent rather than actual result?

Iron free fall bombs dropped from 30,000ft in a close formation of however many B-17s is 'precision bombing'? The difference was in intent/policy and not so much in results. And before you jump on the policy argument, what was, was. In a form of warfare never attempted on this scale. We now know different, but they didn't then. Applying the label 'War Criminal' to any of the Allied leaders in the War against Nazism is just puerile.

In the war against Japan, you may have a point, because by then, they'd realised that 'precision bombing' - wasn't, and those B-29 raids were designed to take out the Japanese cities (As was the raid on Coventry in November 1940 by the way), as were the A-bombs. 'Surrender, or face total annihilation.'
And you're correct, racial prejudice was almost an unwritten policy in that case. Not an accusation that can easily be aimed at the British, as our Monarchy are steeped in Germanic heredity, as are a great deal of our genetics. It's one of the reasons Hitler didn't want war with the British, because of his racially based idiocy.

So why do we keep hearing about 'Harris the War Criminal', when Leaders and Generals of all nations were guilty of the same indifference? I'm sick and tired of repeating myself on this Harris issue, but again, the man did nothing which was not sanctioned by Churchill and the War Cabinet. The Dresden raid itself is purported to have been carried out at the request of Stalin to Churchill, Churchill to Cabinet, Cabinet to Air Ministry, Air Ministry to Harris.. It's simply that no-one has the nerve to level that accusation against one of the greatest wartime leaders the world has seen. If not The Greatest. And if they did, they'd have to level the same accusations at all of the Allied Leaders. Rooseveldt, Trueman, Churchill and yep, 'Good Old Joe'. That's 'Uncle Joe' to our transatlantic cousins.

So Harris was, and remains, simply a scapegoat. Consequently a 'Bandwagon' has been generated, which all too many people are willing to jump on, and which drags the rest of Bomber Command down with it.

So, again, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal'? Did the B-29 aircrew receive a Campaign Medal?

[Sternjaeger II]

You are omitting one pivotal point: the area bombing was Harris' idea, not Churchill's. Yes,he received pressure from Stalin, and realised that with the American intervention he was going to lose the grip on the ETO,so something needed to be done,but according to Churchill's memoirs,he was always reluctant about the de-housing, exactly because he saw the effects of the Blitz and because by the time they did it the war was virtually over,and they would have had to deal with the aftermath.

Harris is guilty for his lack of vision and what I think is his personal revenge and will to be remembered in history,but the toll to pay for his vanity was u reasonably high.

LeMay was way more ruthless than Harris,he was a proper cowboy,flying lead formation and imposing a strict discipline among his air force. He himself reckoned that if the Japanese caught him they would have tried and executed him for war crimes,so by his own admission he was well aware of what he was doing. He hated his enemies.

Once again,I don't wanna judge the men, they took tough decisions in difficult times, I'm only saying that celebrating them is really out of place.

[ATAG_Dutch]

So, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal', as you accuse Harris of being, or not?

'realised that with the American intervention he was going to lose the grip on the ETO' - what? Churchill campaigned for American involvement from the word go. Stupid comment.

'according to Churchill's memoirs,he was always reluctant about the de-housing' - I know, I have the books (you know, those I've never looked at), which he wrote after the war.

'Harris is guilty for what I think is his personal revenge' - Personal revenge for what exactly? He was quite happy farming in Africa.

'I'm only saying that celebrating them is really out of place.' - let me guess, because they helped win the war against Nazism?

'if the Japanese caught him they would have tried and executed him for war crimes' - he had good evidence and good cause. The Doolittle Raiders suffered that exact fate in '42. Didn't take a genius to work that out.

So, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal', as you accuse Harris of being, or not?





.......

[WTE_Galway]

There is no memorial for the Luftwaffe, though.

What ??????

Yes there is .... in Bavaria not far from Munich ...

http://www.ww2museums.com/article/15838/Memorial-German-Luftwaffe.htm

http://www.oorlogsmusea.nl/upload/7067101117184205.JPG

[Bewolf]

Fine.

But was General Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal' or was it his leaders Rooseveldt/Trueman, who sanctioned these actions? - As it was Churchill as Head of the War Cabinet, in consultation with the Air Ministry who defined the policy that Harris (as a good 'General') carried out to the best of his abilities?
It was only post Dresden that Churchill began to distance himself politically from the Area Bombing policy, in fear of his post war political reputation. So who was the 'War Criminal'? Churchill? You might as well say then that all the leaders of the victorious nations were 'war criminals'.


Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standart setting process applayable to all, or mere winners justice?

Or let's say it this way. Before all this bomber combat honoring, this trial was seen as valid and trendsetting in Germany. Since this debate about honoring those bomber pilots came up and especially since the statue for Bomber Harris was errected, it is more and more seen as mere winners trial, where nationalism and hero worshipping trumps general moral values, completly in line with the soviet case back then.

[Sternjaeger II]

So, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal', as you accuse Harris of being, or not?

'realised that with the American intervention he was going to lose the grip on the ETO' - what? Churchill campaigned for American involvement from the word go. Stupid comment.

'according to Churchill's memoirs,he was always reluctant about the de-housing' - I know, I have the books (you know, those I've never looked at), which he wrote after the war.

'Harris is guilty for what I think is his personal revenge' - Personal revenge for what exactly? He was quite happy farming in Africa.

'I'm only saying that celebrating them is really out of place.' - let me guess, because they helped win the war against Nazism?

'if the Japanese caught him they would have tried and executed him for war crimes' - he had good evidence and good cause. The Doolittle Raiders suffered that exact fate in '42. Didn't take a genius to work that out.

So, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal', as you accuse Harris of being, or not?





.......

I think he was, but I have no intention of carrying on a conversation with you if you don't change your offensive tone. I'm sure you can voice your opinion without being offensive to your interlocutor.

[Sternjaeger II]

Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standart setting process applayable to all, or mere winners justice?

Or let's say it this way. Before all this bomber combat honoring, this trial was seen as valid and trendsetting in Germany. Since this debate about honoring those bomber pilots came up and especially since the statue for Bomber Harris was errected, it is more and more seen as mere winners trial, where nationalism and hero worshipping trumps general moral values, completly in line with the soviet case back then.

There was an interesting debate on how this idea is too scary or hard to compute for some people, the formula "we're the good guys, so we're allowed pretty much anything for the sake of our good cause" seemed to apply to a lot of unjustifiable stuff, with people failing to comprehend or remember than in their own eyes, the Nazis were the good guys and if they won it would have been their measure of good and bad, not ours.

[csThor]

Just a few things that reading brought to my mind ...

1.) The history is always written by the winners. If you don't believe that try to look up the history of the wars of Rome vs Carthago and how the Romans villainized their opponents to the point of razing their city and spreading salt after their ultimate victory. The historians don't know that much about Carthago and its interior workings - most of the sources are roman and therefor not really reliable. And the reason for all of that? An ordinary power struggle between two aspiring nations.

Now, with our modern perspective, the NS ideology was so far off the moral and humane scale that it's not funny today, either. They are the villains, from our perspective today, but if they'd have won the war (what a hair-raising thought, especially for me as a german) they would have been the shiny knights and their opponents would have been the villains (personal tip: read "Fatherland", a what-if novel about a german police investigator in the 1960s who has to solve a murder case in Berlin only to find the truth about the holocaust and dies to make sure the info gets out to the US).

2.) To criticize Rommel for not following orders to the letter is a bit too simple. He was totally in line with Prusso-German tradition in that sense and the prussian and german armies have bred that kind of officer (bold, aggressive, offensive-minded and hell-bent on independence) for centuries. Even a certain Hans-Joachim von Ziethen defied his king when Frederick ordered a charge and Ziethen declined because he felt the situation was not yet favorable:

"After the battle his Majesty may have my head but during battle he may allow me to make use of it."

In this Rommel was by no means alone. Guderian defied orders as early as 1940 when he received a stop order and declared the following advance of his Corps as "armed recon". Same goes for the withdrawal in front of Moscow in late 1941. Manstein objected to Hitler's orders more than once and finally got sacked because of it. History is full of such little (or larger) infractions but they're the result of the pecular way the prussian and then the german armies operated and trained their officers corps. (another personal tip: "The German Way of War" by Robert M. Citino)

As for his blatant disregard of the Italians there's a history and it is not limited to Rommel. Rommel's first meeting with the Italians was in 1918 and what he saw there gave him a thorough disregard of italian potential as warriors. It was an unfair impression, after all the country had never been a fan of participating in the war at all, but it stuck. Secondly, however, many german officers felt that the italians weren't persecuting the war with the vigor and resolution that was necessary. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the small circle of german liaison officers to Supermarina which in late 1940 wrote reports on italian capabilities that painted a depressing picture and argued - forcefully - for a german takeover of the war planning and execution. Rommel was the most visible of the officers who had contempt for the italians as warriors but he was by no means alone. To the italian's defense it must be said that they were saddled with a virtually non-existant armament industry, that the participation in the war was not popular again and that they did not have the germans' "warrior tradition" with all that it entailed.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yes, they even made a movie out of Fatherland, which I recommend.

As per your observations, I agree that it was the general attitude, the average German officer arrogance is probably what cost him the war, and unfortunately it wasn't something based on the perception of the allies as somewhat less trained or worse equipped, it was just plain arrogance.

I met a Regia Aeronautica pilot some years ago, Giosue' Carillo, he was based in Sciacca, Sicily, on the same airfield where the JG26 operated from. They shared the same machines (he flew 109s received from Germany with Italian markings) and the same airfield, but they didn't share much else.

He had a bit of the German looks and also spoke German, so he befriended some of the Luftwaffe pilots there, but operatively communications were kept to a minimum and collaboration was very crude, if non existent.

He often met Luftwaffe 109s in the air, but they would normally waggle their wings and fly off, they never worked together in joint sorties or patrols.

[Bewolf]

Yes, they even made a movie out of Fatherland, which I recommend.

As per your observations, I agree that it was the general attitude, the average German officer arrogance is probably what cost him the war, and unfortunately it wasn't something based on the perception of the allies as somewhat less trained or worse equipped, it was just plain arrogance.

I met a Regia Aeronautica pilot some years ago, Giosue' Carillo, he was based in Sciacca, Sicily, on the same airfield where the JG26 operated from. They shared the same machines (he flew 109s received from Germany with Italian markings) and the same airfield, but they didn't share much else.

He had a bit of the German looks and also spoke German, so he befriended some of the Luftwaffe pilots there, but operatively communications were kept to a minimum and collaboration was very crude, if non existent.

He often met Luftwaffe 109s in the air, but they would normally waggle their wings and fly off, they never worked together in joint sorties or patrols.

First, I like Italy and Italians. Had some great times there and I also have great symphathy for a people that could not care less for the adventures of it's political leadership.

But if you argue in line of military professionalism, then this:

Arrogance is a very "relative" word and more often then not the result of hurt pride on the blaming side. I think the failure of the italian armies in the Balkans, Greece and N. Africa, requiering massive german support, and the Taranto raid did a lot to strenghen those mutual feelings. Simply stating that german "arrogance" cost them the war is true in the them dealing with the civil populations in Europe, espcially eastern Europe, but not so much in the case of the italian military, which disqualified itself on many occassions in general, despite some shining examples, units and individuals, in between.

Blame Mussonlini for bringing a country that was neither willing nor prepared, nor had the professionalism for a war of this scale into this conflict.

[Hood]

I think he was, but I have no intention of carrying on a conversation with you if you don't change your offensive tone. I'm sure you can voice your opinion without being offensive to your interlocutor.

Stones and glass houses etc.

The end does not always justify the means, hence the controversy over Harris and the atomic bombs on Japan up to modern day issues in the Middle East.

It's too easy to look back from our current warfare morality/philosophy and to criticise those in the past. Take the trenches of WWI - at the time it was all new as the face of war completely changed within a year or two. In the early stages could they really have appreciated the horror?

[Sternjaeger II]

Stones and glass houses etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't call other people's intelligent and mature opinions as idiotic, and in this specific thread the conversation has been extremely civilised, so no, it's not acceptable. Besides if we had any friction we need to move on, or shall we always use it as an excuse for being rude to each other?


The end does not always justify the means, hence the controversy over Harris and the atomic bombs on Japan up to modern day issues in the Middle East.

Bingo. And since you mentioned the Middle East, as much as I definitely don't want Iran to get a nuclear arsenal for obvious reasons, it's crazy to think that some countries dictate over others' freedom of choice on such topics.


It's too easy to look back from our current warfare morality/philosophy and to criticise those in the past. Take the trenches of WWI - at the time it was all new as the face of war completely changed within a year or two. In the early stages could they really have appreciated the horror?

well it's not like the Allies didn't know about area bombing effects, since the Blitz happened 3 years before.. Truth is that Harris' de-housing, meant as DELIBERATE (not incidental, like it could happen with pinpoint) targeting of civilian targets was not necessary, was just a bloodshed of innocents on both sides.

The use of atomic bombs stands on another ground though: they had to use the two kinds of bombs because of all the R&D that went into it and because they needed to send a message to Russia. Still, they could have used a desert island and invited an international observation committee..

[Sternjaeger II]

First, I like Italy and Italians. Had some great times there and I also have great symphathy for a people that could not care less for the adventures of it's political leadership.

likewise, I love Germany and their attention to details :mrgreen:


But if you argue in line of military professionalism, then this:

Arrogance is a very "relative" word and more often then not the result of hurt pride on the blaming side. I think the failure of the italian armies in the Balkans, Greece and N. Africa, requiering massive german support, and the Taranto raid did a lot to strenghen those mutual feelings. Simply stating that german "arrogance" cost them the war is true in the them dealing with the civil populations in Europe, espcially eastern Europe, but not so much in the case of the italian military, which disqualified itself on many occassions in general, despite some shining examples, units and individuals, in between.

Blame Mussonlini for bringing a country that was neither willing nor prepared, nor had the professionalism for a war of this scale into this conflict.

I surely blame Mussolini for dragging an unwilling country into a war with an ill equipped and poorly managed Army and Air Force, but it's not like the Italians had the exclusive in the dismissive treatment from the Germans: Japanese, Rumanians, Hungarians etc.. none of the Axis powers involved collaborated to a standard near to the Allies' one, and collaboration proved to be a defining difference.

The Nazis really believed in their superiority, and the wake up call that maybe things weren't exactly as they thought arrived too late (fortunately!).

[bongodriver]

it's a shame they overlooked one very important detail....the blood thirsty megalomaniac they put in charge.

[fruitbat]

it's a shame they overlooked one very important detail....the blood thirsty megalomaniac they put in charge.

Italy or Germany?

[bongodriver]

Italy or Germany?

Take your pick I guess, but I meant Germany.

[kendo65]

...

1.) The history is always written by the winners. If you don't believe that try to look up the history of the wars of Rome vs Carthago and how the Romans villainized their opponents to the point of razing their city and spreading salt after their ultimate victory. The historians don't know that much about Carthago and its interior workings - most of the sources are roman and therefor not really reliable. And the reason for all of that? An ordinary power struggle between two aspiring nations.

Now, with our modern perspective, the NS ideology was so far off the moral and humane scale that it's not funny today, either. They are the villains, from our perspective today, but if they'd have won the war (what a hair-raising thought, especially for me as a german) they would have been the shiny knights and their opponents would have been the villains (personal tip: read "Fatherland", a what-if novel about a german police investigator in the 1960s who has to solve a murder case in Berlin only to find the truth about the holocaust and dies to make sure the info gets out to the US).

...

While agreeing that there is some truth in the 'history is written by the winners' idea, I wonder if it is perhaps a little too simple and dismissive of other factors. To accept it you need to believe that there is no real moral sense in the world - that all morality is relative and a construction of particular cultures. You rightly say above that from our modern perspective Nazi Germany is viewed as beyond the pale morally, but it's the conclusion that if they had won we would now all view their actions as heroic and right that I want to question.

My own position (maybe unfashionable these days) is that there is a natural and deep moral sense in people that finds certain actions repugnant and indefensible. There is evidence for this in Nazi Germany - how many amongst the general German populace knew what was being done in Belsen or Auschwitz? When a regime chooses certain extreme actions it can typically only carry them through by either concealing them from the bulk of their own people, by using lies and disinformation, or by terrorising large segments of the population into complicity.

In my understanding one of the reasons for the construction of the 'industrial scale' extermination camps was the unforeseen psychological toll on the members of the SS death squads in Soviet Russia. Even amongst the most polically-committed members of the regime close-up exposure to slaughter on that scale had psychological consequences that proved difficult to sustain.

Many ordinary German citizens felt moral repugnance towards the Nazis at the time. Many chose active resistance and paid for it with their lives.

Surely the main idea in 'Fatherland' is exactly about this natural, moral 'reality' breaking through the massive repression that would be needed by the victorious regime to sustain their image as heroic, just, winners.

Given the above I would suggest that if the Nazis had won they would not have been able to sustain the 'fiction' of their justness or rightness because inevitably truth would prevail. Tyrannies ultimately collapse because in time their actions prove to be out of alignment with the deep needs of their own people.

I've some thoughts on the moral issues of the Allied bombing campaign versus the Nazi death camps too, but it will have to wait ;)

[csThor]

While agreeing that there is some truth in the 'history is written by the winners' idea, I wonder if it is perhaps a little too simple and dismissive of other factors. To accept it you need to believe that there is no real moral sense in the world - that all morality is relative and a construction of particular cultures. You rightly say above that from our modern perspective Nazi Germany is viewed as beyond the pale morally, but it's the conclusion that if they had won we would now all view their actions as heroic and right that I want to question.

My own position (maybe unfashionable these days) is that there is a natural and deep moral sense in people that finds certain actions repugnant and indefensible. There is evidence for this in Nazi Germany - how many amongst the general German populace knew what was being done in Belsen or Auschwitz? When a regime chooses certain extreme actions it can typically only carry them through by either concealing them from the bulk of their own people, by using lies and disinformation, or by terrorising large segments of the population into complicity.

In my understanding one of the reasons for the construction of the 'industrial scale' extermination camps was the unforeseen psychological toll on the members of the SS death squads in Soviet Russia. Even amongst the most polically-committed members of the regime close-up exposure to slaughter on that scale had psychological consequences that proved difficult to sustain.

Many ordinary German citizens felt moral repugnance towards the Nazis at the time. Many chose active resistance and paid for it with their lives.

Surely the main idea in 'Fatherland' is exactly about this natural, moral 'reality' breaking through the massive repression that would be needed by the victorious regime to sustain their image as heroic, just, winners.

Given the above I would suggest that if the Nazis had won they would not have been able to sustain the 'fiction' of their justness or rightness because inevitably truth would prevail. Tyrannies ultimately colapse because in time their actions prove to be out of alignment with the deep needs of their own people.

Then how do we explain people like Reinhard Heydrich? How can we square the essentially two persons in one body: the loving father and husband, the lover of classic music and gifted violinist vs the ice-cold planner and executor of the Holocaust? How do we explain the involvement of so many utterly respectable people in key positions of the Holocaust (like the engineers who designed and built the camps - who did not question their orders and kept working despite any kind of misgivings they may have had)? How do we explain the trainload of ordinary people working as informants for the secret service in pretty much any kind of totalitarian society (see NKVD, see Gestapo, see Stasi, etc etc)?

The way I see it there is an animalistic streak of ruthlessness in most of us which pertains to one's own advancement. It is weaker in some, stronger in others ... and it is the perfect tool for dictatorships not only to detect opposition within but also to push its own more drastic projects by offering economical and social benefits for those who do this dirty work. :-|

[kendo65]

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

(the above was written before, but posted after CSThor's response )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Heydrich and specific individuals - there will always be particular people with combinations of sociopathic or psychopathic personality traits, and extreme political views that will allow them to balance and reconcile brutality towards chosen targets with civic duty and normal family activities. My argument above largely stands or falls on the reasons why the Nazis were able to get away with it. Ie how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?

I suspect some of the above questions could be applied to some Allied airmen who may have had deep misgivings about what they were doing to German cities. I was struck in the Bomber TV programme by the crewman who cracked up during a mission. 'Lack of moral fibre'. One expressed reservations but justified his participation with 'They started it'. That's not meant as a criticism of the individuals, more a comment on the near-impossibilty of maintaining any kind of normal judgement of behaviour in such an extreme situation as a war.

How much personal responsibilty do ordinary individuals carry when they are basically 'caught' in situations of deep powerlessness with few or no ways out?

[Sternjaeger II]

CsThor, I'm sure you heard the name Alan Turing, one of the key men for the victory in WW2 and condemned in 1952 for homosexuality (because it was considered a crime) and accepting the chemical castration by the very same country that fought against the horrors of Nazism..

As you said, unfortunately it's all relative :?

[csThor]

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

I don't think we will ever know. I guess there was at least a sense of something dark happening, but in a state like nationalsocialist Germany one didn't ask too many questions.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

CsThor, I'm sure you heard the name Alan Turing, one of the key men for the victory in WW2 and condemned in 1952 for homosexuality (because it was considered a crime) and accepting the chemical castration by the very same country that fought against the horrors of Nazism..

As you said, unfortunately it's all relative :?

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree that the treatment of Turing was abhorrent, it was also actually the absolute norm in the majority of countries worldwide for Homosexuality to be a criminal offence, based upon 'Christian Morality' in the West of course. A few exceptions like Iceland, Poland, and Italy (who have always to their credit been amenable to and non judgmental on the issue of 'Man-Love' lol, dating back to Antiquity.)

Turing was not forced to 'accept chemical castration' he voluntarily chose it rather than face a years imprisonment.....which is quite distinct to people being rounded up and executed/gassed/liquidated/murdered for being gay; there is no 'relativism' to speak of, if a comparison is being drawn this amounts to equivocation.

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times these days and even have people like Graham Norton on the telly! Good show. Can't stand Julian Clary though, nothing to do with him being gay (doesn't bother me one bit)....He's just not funny lol.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

(the above was written before, but posted after CSThor's response )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Heydrich and specific individuals - there will always be particular people with combinations of sociopathic or psychopathic personality traits, and extreme political views that will allow them to balance and reconcile brutality towards chosen targets with civic duty and normal family activities. My argument above largely stands or falls on the reasons why the Nazis were able to get away with it. Ie how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?

I suspect some of the above questions could be applied to some Allied airmen who may have had deep misgivings about what they were doing to German cities. I was struck in the Bomber TV programme by the crewman who cracked up during a mission. 'Lack of moral fibre'. One expressed reservations but justified his participation with 'They started it'. That's not meant as a criticism of the individuals, more a comment on the near-impossibilty of maintaining any kind of normal judgement of behaviour in such an extreme situation as a war.

How much personal responsibilty do ordinary individuals carry when they are basically 'caught' in situations of deep powerlessness with few or no ways out?

Regarding the question of the complicity or otherwise of the German population, its still the subject of historiographical inquiry. The consensus appears to be that the majority of civilians were aware of atrocities being committed, though not entirely aware of the Wansee conference and the official doctrine and policy of the 'Final Solution' and the precise details of the death camps. They were certainly aware of the forced removal of 'undesirables' to concentration camps and enforced/slave labour, and actively and extensively involved in its facilitation and prosecution.

An Oxford University Historian named Robert Gallatley conducted thorough and respected research into German media both prior to and during the war, drawing the conclusion that there was '"substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in the prosecution of the Holocaust, though he saw no evidence for majority awareness of the precise details.

This has not gone unchallenged however, and the debate continues.

I am of the opinion that what happened in Germany could have most certainly happened anywhere, given the same conflagration of circumstance and variables. To suggest (as some idiots do) that the German people were somehow inherently 'evil' or existed in some kind of personal moral vacuum is patently ludicrous. This is of course clearly evidenced by those who chose bravely to resist (albeit a minority). What it did unfortunately illustrate is what Humanity is capable of, and particularly the insidious and all pervasive effect of a Fascist states propaganda machine upon a populace.

The psychological phenomena of 'herding' has been posited as a possible explanation, and experiments like the 'Stanford prison experiment' *and the 'Milgram experiment' clearly illustrate how otherwise 'normal' people can behave when told to do unspeakable things by what they perceive to be an 'authority' figure. The cult of personality was nurtured and used to great effect by the Nazis, and was a powerful force indeed.

[Sternjaeger II]

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree that the treatment of Turing was abhorrent, it was also actually the absolute norm in the majority of countries worldwide for Homosexuality to be a criminal offence, based upon 'Christian Morality' in the West of course. A few exceptions like Iceland, Poland, and Italy (who have always to their credit been amenable to and non judgmental on the issue of 'Man-Love' lol, dating back to Antiquity.)

yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

As per Italy, although there was no law as such, people had to face mockery and social discrimination anyway, and it's still quite strong in Italy and Spain today, again mainly because of the darn catholic church..


Turing was not forced to 'accept chemical castration' he voluntarily chose it rather than face a years imprisonment.....which is quite distinct to people being rounded up and executed/gassed/liquidated/murdered for being gay; there is no 'relativism' to speak of, if a comparison is being drawn this amounts to equivocation.

..it's still abhorrent, and a form of persecution.

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times these days and even have people like Graham Norton on the telly! Good show. Can't stand Julian Clary though, nothing to do with him being gay (doesn't bother me one bit)....He's just not funny lol.

Yeah, I like Graham Norton too, not as good as Jonathan Ross though ;)

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

As per Italy, although there was no law as such, people had to face mockery and social discrimination anyway, and it's still quite strong in Italy and Spain today, again mainly because of the darn catholic church..


..it's still abhorrent, and a form of persecution.


Yeah, I like Graham Norton too, not as good as Jonathan Ross though ;)

yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

Right. Because at that time, it was de facto not criminal, it was the letter of the law, almost worldwide. Yet almost universal worldwide state persecution of or sanction of Homosexuality by imprisonment is not the same as outright murder without trial and due process of law for the supposed 'crime' of being gay, or even suspicion of being so. There is no 'moral equivalence' whatsoever, and it seemed as though an attempt was being made to make one.

At the time, and of course wrongly, homosexuality was by a Judeo-Christian inspired, almost universally followed though erroneous 'Ethical standard' considered a crime. Britain was by no means alone in this (as you have noted, though I'm not sure why Britain was singled out), in fact it was as previously stated the worldwide norm. Murdering gay people or suspected gay people outright was absolutely not.

Point being, the world at large was 'guilty' of the persecution of gay people (not specifically Britain as you have acknowledged )....agreed. What the world was not guilty of was their systematic, wholesale execution, and attempted absolute eradication.

Quite different things, I'm sure you'll agree. Does this make me 'guilty' of 'moral relativism'? Absolutely, unashamedly and gladly. Most people are....and I stand by it. :) Thankfully, I'm not alone. Millions of people from many nations happened to agree with me and took up arms to defeat Nazism.

A good thing, I'm sure we can both agree on. 'Relatively speaking'. ;)

BTW Stern that amounts to partial agreement that some things are indeed relative, as you stated. I do believe however that the case of Turing and Nazi policy against gays are not comparable at all, in terms of being equally 'immoral'. That is a 'value judgment', not an 'absolute truth', which happily the vast majority of people share. There is no such thing as an 'absolute universal morality', I wish there was.

[kendo65]

'how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?'

...
What it did unfortunately illustrate is what Humanity is capable of, and particularly the insidious and all pervasive effect of a Fascist states propaganda machine upon a populace.

The psychological phenomena of 'herding' has been posited as a possible explanation, and experiments like the 'Stanford prison experiment' *and the 'Milgram experiment' clearly illustrate how otherwise 'normal' people can behave when told to do unspeakable things by what they perceive to be an 'authority' figure.
...

I had thought of those experiments and what they say about the pliability of the 'ordinary' person when I was writing the above. Establishing the 'right' conditions of deference to authority and unquestioning obedience was obviously a key facet of the Nazi regime.

Nonetheless there were those in the Milgram / Stanford experiments who refused to comply, just as there were those in Germany. For those individuals is it a deeper commitment to an inner moral sense that leads them to refuse to comply even in the face of threats and possible danger? And at any time in any country are the greater mass of the population always just 'following orders' from their perceived superiors? Just that in most cases the orders are comparatively mundane and benign.

(Personally I don't like Graham Norton. I used to like him for his role in Father Ted. I changed my mind when I realised that it wasn't great acting, but that he actually was as annoying as that in real life too!)

[ATAG_Snapper]

'how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?'



I had thought of those experiments and what they say about the pliability of the 'ordinary' person when I was writing the above. Establishing the 'right' conditions of deference to authority and unquestioning obedience was obviously a key facet of the Nazi regime.

Nonetheless there were those in the Milgram / Stanford experiments who refused to comply, just as there were those in Germany. For those individuals is it a deeper commitment to an inner moral sense that leads them to refuse to comply even in the face of threats and possible danger? And at any time in any country are the greater mass of the population always just 'following orders' from their perceived superiors? Just that in most cases the orders are comparatively mundane and benign.

(Personally I don't like Graham Norton. I used to like him for his role in Father Ted. I changed my mind when I realised that it wasn't great acting, but that he actually was as annoying as that in real life too!)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

[WTE_Galway]

Do remember a little history in these discussions.

The first concentration camp, Dachau, was setup in March 1933 and immediately started processing "dissidents" including academics, writers, unionists and members of the communist party.

By June 1934 the only force capable of opposing Hitler was Ernst Röhm's SA (an exceptionally unpleasant organization in its own right) that was quickly and ruthlessly eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives when all of its upper leadership were imprisoned and executed.

By the time of the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 the concentration camps had been operating for 6 years and anyone even slightly critical of Hitler was efficiently rounded up and bundled off.

It is simply not true that ordinary Germans failed to oppose Hitler. Between 1933 and 1945 approximately 3.5 million ordinary Aryan German citizens were sent to concentration camps simply for opposing the Nazis and 77,000 of those were executed.

Note those 77,000 executed people were NOT members of persecuted groups such as the gays, gypsies or Jews and they were not criminals. These were ordinary Germans who opposed Hitler.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standard setting process applicable to all, or mere winners justice?

Yes, but 'following orders' isn't the point I'm trying to make. Harris was not the only individual responsible for the mass killing of civilians, but is the only individual on the Allied side to receive these accusations of 'War Criminal'.

I didn't say he was 'following orders', I said his actions were sanctioned and approved by the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

If you accuse Harris, you must accuse Churchill, Eaker, Doolittle, Eisenhower, Tedder, LeMay and many others who sanctioned and approved the bombing of cities wherever it occured during the whole conflict.

But people don't. They just point the finger at Harris and shout 'Witch!' 'Heretic!' 'Burn Him!'.

He has become the scapegoat for the entire 'Strategic Bombing Campaign' in Europe.

No-one mentions Eaker or Doolittle. No-one seems to wish to discuss LeMay's actions in Japan, a man who holds the world record for the mass killing of civilians with 'conventional weapons', as they prefer to focus their attentions on Harris or the A-Bombs. Was Trueman a 'War Criminal'?

Which brings me to Nuremburg. Of course the Trials were necessary, but I doubt that all of the outcomes were 'Just'. Some were found guilty who most probably weren't - Kesselring being the most obvious to me. Some seemed to get off lightly such as von Braun and Speer, along with SS veterans who still during interviews express both their pride in being selected and their admiration for Hitler without any detectable regret or remorse. Again, my opinion.

So yes, it was 'Standard Setting' but also in some instances 'Winners Justice', but also in some cases didn't go far enough. But then any number of miscarriages of justice can be pointed at in modern times, so in this Nuremburg was by no means unique.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

What is 'Victor's Justice'?

The Allies Victor's Justice was perhaps better than Hitler's Victors' Justice??

Today, we can discuss Hitler and Allies. If Hitler had won...no discussion...no internet??

Area Bombing?

What is Area Bombing?

The German Luftwaffe used Area Bombing over Europe in 1940. They expected to be the masters of Europe by 1940.

One thing stopped them. The RAF fighter pilots in 1940 during the Battle of Britain who volunteered from all over the world.

Area bombing over Germany was the only alternative for the RAF and the American 8th Air Force. My German friends in Germany (not on this forum) regard the RAF and the American 8th Air Force as being the same as regards area bombing.

By 1944, the RAF at night was more accurate than the American 8th by day.

The attack here by German posters against Harris is typical of 'easy' history. The Germans in WW2 were guilty of the most barbaric acts imaginable and resulted in the deaths of millions. RAF Bomber Command was the ONLY method available to attack Germany from 1940 onwards.

WW2 was caused by Germany. The deaths of German civilians was therefore caused by Germany.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Sternjaeger II]

Hi all,

What is 'Victor's Justice'?

The Allies Victor's Justice was perhaps better than Hitler's Victors' Justice??

Today, we can discuss Hitler and Allies. If Hitler had won...no discussion...no internet??

Area Bombing?

What is Area Bombing?

The German Luftwaffe used Area Bombing over Europe in 1940. They expected to be the masters of Europe by 1940.

One thing stopped them. The RAF fighter pilots in 1940 during the Battle of Britain who volunteered from all over the world.

Sorry man, but yours sounds like a post-pub rambling... ;)
The RAF in 1940 didn't stop area bombing, bombing operations continued after the apex of the Battle of Britain and well into 1941, followed by V-1s, V-2s and Operation Steinbock in 1944.


Area bombing over Germany was the only alternative for the RAF and the American 8th Air Force.

It was never demonstrated that area bombing was the only alternative, in fact it caused a lot of trouble postwar, and it didn't alter or shorten the war's length. According to Doenitz it surely was a huge blow for morale on the citizens, but the war in the ETO ended only when the Allies entered Berlin and Hitler killed himself.

My German friends in Germany (not on this forum) regard the RAF and the American 8th Air Force as being the same as regards area bombing.

Well it wasn't the same thing. The 8th Air Force never approved area bombing in the ETO, they only went for pinpoint attacks with collateral damage, but never deliberately bombed civilian targets like the RAF did. What your German friends think is irrelevant to the facts of history.

By 1944, the RAF at night was more accurate than the American 8th by day.

yeah, one thing is hitting a factory complex in daylight, another is hitting a target the size of a city at night :rolleyes: all they had to do admittedly was following the glare and drop onto the city on fire.. again, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.


The attack here by German posters against Harris is typical of 'easy' history. The Germans in WW2 were guilty of the most barbaric acts imaginable and resulted in the deaths of millions. RAF Bomber Command was the ONLY method available to attack Germany from 1940 onwards.

Au contraire, you'll find non-Germans here that thinks area bombing was a war crime. This is not a race on who committed the worst atrocities (the Russians would win by far in that race), the whole point was that a celebration of Arthur "Bomber" Harris is totally out of place due to the controversial nature of his orders.
As per "the only method available" I'm sure you've heard of D-Day ;-) the incomplete intelligence together with production dispersion meant that it was impossible to completely annihilate the German industrial machine. Many production lines in fact increased their output during the round-the-clock bombings of 1944/45.
There really was no reason to pulverise those German cities other than retaliation. "De-housing" was a mere excuse,since by the late stage of the war many production sites were ran with slave labour.


WW2 was caused by Germany. The deaths of German civilians was therefore caused by Germany.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
that's simply ludicrous, but considering the rest of your post, I wouldn't expect a more elaborated conclusion.

Seriously, read the whole thread before posting such nonsense.

[csThor]

Area bombing over Germany was the only alternative for the RAF and the American 8th Air Force. My German friends in Germany (not on this forum) regard the RAF and the American 8th Air Force as being the same as regards area bombing.

Pardon my french, but BS. In 1941 and 1942 Bomber Command was certainly the only means the UK had to strike directly at Germany but the tactical problems (such as the lack of a long-range escort) made its use difficult. One of the key reasons why area bombing at night was chosen - apart from lessening the potential losses and the lack of sufficiently precise technology for night attacks - was the incredible fear of the RAF of becoming subordinated to the Army again and so the key figures decided to show that the RAF was capable of conducting the war on its own. This internal political squabble - a leftover from the 1920s squabbles over the greatly diminished funds and the role of the RAF - was a very powerful motivator to the people in charge and combined with the vanity of Arthur Harris, who was also fighting his own war with his internal critics, this provided the matrix for the strategy the RAF Bomber Command applied in WW2.

On a sidenote it is darkly amusing to see the attempts of the nations between the wars to ban deliberate attacks on the civilian population ... and to see which nations deliberately torpedoed any such attempts. Can you guess? Yes, the USA (which at the time of the last attempt was about to roll out the prototype of the B-17) and the United Kingdom (which had used aerial attacks on civilian settlements in "colonial warfare" already). But all of that is history now ...

[Kongo-Otto]

Do remember a little history in these discussions.

The first concentration camp, Dachau, was setup in March 1933 and immediately started processing "dissidents" including academics, writers, unionists and members of the communist party.

Well you are right and wrong in this one. First of all Dachau was the first official KZ,there have been "KZ's" before, it started right until Januar 30th 1933 when the SA begun arresting people right off the streets and put them in so called "Wilde KZ's" which means "wild KZ" without any control of higher authorities, this "Wild KZ" were on a regional scale, they were used to torture and kill opposing people and sometimes also used to "pay personal bills".
This "Wild KZ's" were completely closed as by January 1934 as the SS gained full control over the Police and Security sector. Some of those "wild KZ's" could only be closed by hevily armed Police under SS Command due to SA resistance. All in all there have been up to 48 "wild Kz's" until the close up of the last ones in January 1934.


By June 1934 the only force capable of opposing Hitler was Ernst Röhm's SA (an exceptionally unpleasant organization in its own right) that was quickly and ruthlessly eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives when all of its upper leadership were imprisoned and executed.

If you really think that the SA would have opposed Hitler, you are totally wrong, that would never had happend.
I copied this out of wiki, it fit the topic very good:
"Adolf Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power. He also wanted to conciliate leaders of the Reichswehr, the official German military who feared and despised the SA—in particular Röhm's ambition to absorb the Reichswehr into the SA under his own leadership. Finally, Hitler used the purge to attack or eliminate critics of his new regime, especially those loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, as well as to settle scores with old enemies."

The whole wiki article is very good about the topic "Night of the long Knives"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

[Bewolf]

Yes, but 'following orders' isn't the point I'm trying to make. Harris was not the only individual responsible for the mass killing of civilians, but is the only individual on the Allied side to receive these accusations of 'War Criminal'.

I didn't say he was 'following orders', I said his actions were sanctioned and approved by the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

If you accuse Harris, you must accuse Churchill, Eaker, Doolittle, Eisenhower, Tedder, LeMay and many others who sanctioned and approved the bombing of cities wherever it occured during the whole conflict.

Actually, you are right here. But as usual, the way these people are handled nowadays plays a major role.


But people don't. They just point the finger at Harris and shout 'Witch!' 'Heretic!' 'Burn Him!'.

He has become the scapegoat for the entire 'Strategic Bombing Campaign' in Europe.

No-one mentions Eaker or Doolittle. No-one seems to wish to discuss LeMay's actions in Japan, a man who holds the world record for the mass killing of civilians with 'conventional weapons', as they prefer to focus their attentions on Harris or the A-Bombs. Was Trueman a 'War Criminal'?

And that does wonder you? The UK is the only nation still playing the war time propaganda flute, constantly and activly rubbing the morales in other's faces while stylizing itself as the white knight, unlike the US (not anymore, at least), or Russia, who both keep their hero worshipping to themselves and do not constantly try to profit from the war expirience on a diplomatic or even personal level when it comes to Germany (Though I think Russia has her own track record in eastern Europe when it comes to abusing WW2 in pushing her interests).
No offense, but that this kind of behaviour causes counter reactions aimed mainly back at the UK should not come as a suprise. The war is over 70 years now and nobody in this debate participated in this one or has any claims on morale superiourity, still the british act like the war was only finished yesterday in their evaluation of those events. It's like talking to a time capsule.


Which brings me to Nuremburg. Of course the Trials were necessary, but I doubt that all of the outcomes were 'Just'. Some were found guilty who most probably weren't - Kesselring being the most obvious to me. Some seemed to get off lightly such as von Braun and Speer, along with SS veterans who still during interviews express both their pride in being selected and their admiration for Hitler without any detectable regret or remorse. Again, my opinion.

So yes, it was 'Standard Setting' but also in some instances 'Winners Justice', but also in some cases didn't go far enough. But then any number of miscarriages of justice can be pointed at in modern times, so in this Nuremburg was by no means unique.

Naturally you are right here, and judging the events of those dark times is immensly complex. However, these trials helped to establish some new concepts in national and international politics modern Germany still believes in, but which are constantly broken by their own paladins. And that brings us to the gist of this debate: The major gripe here comes from the fact that the UK refuses to be judged by the very same standarts it pushed onto others but argues by an old testament like "they started it" line. The "Eye for an eye" rule is not a concept that will bring you far in any modern court.
Constantly starting wars with other nations both before and after WW2, actually up to this very day, also does not really help the case.

Edit: I just found the perfect quote illustrating the whole problem:

U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs.

[bongodriver]

The UK is the only nation still playing the war time propaganda flute


I find this statement confusing, do you mean we export those views around the world as a National policy?......news to me

or are you just juumping back on the 'I've seen what British football supporters are like so that is what they all are like' bandwaggon?

[Sternjaeger II]

I find this statement confusing, do you mean we export those views around the world as a National policy?......news to me

or are you just juumping back on the 'I've seen what British football supporters are like so that is what they all are like' bandwaggon?

nah, Bongo I think you misinterpreted what he meant.
There's a huge void in modern Britain, it's an identity crisis that is ever so strong now with multi-ethnicity and a lack of a general direction to follow.
My view as a non-English is that the heritage of the Empire mentality is ever so strong in "conservative British" because unfortunately they have nothing better to cling on to, it's sign of a culture that has no modern achievements and can't let go of the past, but while the British revel in the glories of WW2, the Germans moved on and are selling the UK millions of cars, engineering solutions, high speed trains.. Germany might have failed a military invasion in 1940, but its economic invasion is stronger than ever.

I love this country,so please take this as the perspective of a foreigner living here and observing, trying to give a constructive criticism to solve the generational values loophole that this glorious country seems to be in at the moment. If I didn't care about or like this place I wouldn't even bother, I would just milk it and do my thing.
There's nothing wrong with the celebration of the past, but not everything that was achieved for a good cause or done in good faith was good.

It's like the whole Falklands thing, I mean, really? It's 2012, let go of the islands, you made your point in 1982. Most people don't even know that the Malvinas were given to Argentina from Spain in 1811, but in typical British Empire fashion, the soldiers got there, planted a flag and said "well it's ours now". The all British self-importance in foreign policies and history is at times anachronistic and ludicrous, and it's what does more damage to the British image abroad than anything else.

In a nutshell: Constant, transversal WW2 banter? Out of place. You're a WW2 general with a controversial career? Your celebration is out of place (besides, I firmly believe that all this celebration was not the original intent of the men involved, they were only doing their job, good or bad).

[Bewolf]

I find this statement confusing, do you mean we export those views around the world as a National policy?......news to me

or are you just juumping back on the 'I've seen what British football supporters are like so that is what they all are like' bandwaggon?

Apart from you taking out only a single argument instead of answering to the whole, yes, you are exporting them.
Or are you telling me the football supporters going abroad doing their thing are not british? Or the british tabloids (especially tabloids, who use to cater to widespread attitudes)? Or the countless folks playing the Nazi Card while playing online games in less mature environments but WW2 sims? The list goes on.

And.....could it be that you are actually unwilling to be thrown into the lot and expect a more fair and individual judgement?

The irony of this debate is that I actually like the UK and prefer it to pretty much any other european country, but this lack of progress in modern international affairs and clinging to this "Agnicourt, Trafalger, Waterloo, Battle of Britian" syndrom is taking it's toll.

[bongodriver]

It's like the whole Falklands thing, I mean, really? It's 2012, let go of the ba$tard islands, you made your point in 1982. Most people don't even know that the Malvinas were given to Argentina from Spain in 1811, but in typical British Empire fashion, the soldiers got there, planted a flag and said "well it's ours now". The all British self-importance in foreign policies and history is at times anachronistic and ludicrous, and it's what does more damage to the British image abroad than anything else.

Ok you go and explain that to the people that live there, and if we 'proved a point' in 82 then what would be the point of so readily capitulating now? is the Falklands issue purely caused by the British?.....I don't think so, what exactly is the difference in Argentina laying a claim as opposed to the British?

And.....could it be that you are actually unwilling to be thrown into the lot and expect a more fair and individual judgement?

Absolutely.....the same way we have to appreciate that modern Germans have nothing to do with the Nazis, I expect not to be judged by an isolated element of my country.


Apart from you taking out only a single argument instead of answering to the whole, yes, you are exporting them.

Much like you used a single quote to sum up the entire British mentality....see quote below.

U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

On a sidenote it is darkly amusing to see the attempts of the nations between the wars to ban deliberate attacks on the civilian population ... and to see which nations deliberately torpedoed any such attempts. Can you guess? Yes, the USA (which at the time of the last attempt was about to roll out the prototype of the B-17) and the United Kingdom (which had used aerial attacks on civilian settlements in "colonial warfare" already). But all of that is history now ...

Hello Thor. What is perhaps even more 'darkly amusing' is to hear Germans waxing lyrical about the 'morality' or otherwise of deliberately and knowingly bombing civilians, a field of endevour that a certain country were quite the originators of and 'experten' in.....dating back to the Zeppelin terror raids of WWI. Thor, 'can you guess' who this country was? :)

British towns and cities, including areas as diverse as Liverpool, the Midlands, my very own Tyneside and nearby Sunderland and even Edinburgh were attacked* with fragmentation bombs and incendiary devices, burning women and children alive and injuring many more. Zeppelin bombing was of course effectively indiscriminate by its very nature.

Perhaps then, it is no surprise when British people are quite dismissive of German lectures on 'morality', seeing them as at best frankly risible.

Murdering and burning UK civilians alive with incendiary's tends to make people a wee bit angry, this tends to result in a desire for retribution. 'An eye for an eye', and all that.

These quotes are all primary sources from the Imperial War Museum and National Archives.


'‘When [the Germans] injure innocent… people they… proclaim it as a great victory and that they have struck terror into the English people in London… Well I can only say this, that it has had the effect of making the Londoners… more determined than ever that the GermHun power shall not only be beaten but ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED out of existence.’ [1]

‘We saw a Zepp the other night… To see the blasted bombs being dropped on helpless civilians and on peaceable houses made the blood go to fever heat and I felt absolutely mad.’ [1]

Journalist J. H. Stapley writing on 5 October 1915 to a friend at the Front

‘Mourners tonight will leave the side of their dead to look into the sky fearfully.
Little children who have… gone to sleep will be awakened and rushed into cellars to save them from death.’

~American journalist William G. Shepherd’s account of London’s third airship raid

During the spring of 1915, Hauptmann Erich Linnarz, captain of Zeppelin LZ38, dropped on Southend (along with his bombs) a placard on which he had written a cryptic message:

'You English. We have come, and will come again soon.

Kill or cure. German.'

These charming German 'love letters' forecasting the English peoples complete annihilation were commonplace. Terribly rum bunch these Huns, What?

Of course, later came the Gotha bomber formation raids en masse causing yet more death and destruction; strategic raids on central London and elsewhere, causing massive damage and killing and maiming many Civilians. Perhaps then, in this light it is understandable that Britain might not have wanted to preclude the possibility of retaliatory strikes against the civilian population of an aggressor, in case it happened again.

Oh wait.....turns out* it actually did! As sure as night follows day. Good call! Didn't see that one coming. Can any member of the class remind me who it was again? ;)

Guernica, the Condor Legion strafing and bombing refugee columns of women and children for 'target practice' for the upcoming war for more 'Lebensraum' and Teutonic world domination, starting the most destructive conflict the world has ever seen (even outdoing the previously gruesome effort) ; civilian bombing of Warsaw, threatening to wipe the cities of the Netherlands off the map unless they surrendered, the list goes on. Not a leg to stand on, sorry......In terms of 'morality', so leave it out please.

If Germany had the capability to erase every British City from the planet, they would have done so without a moments hesitation, or a seconds thought....with no remorse. Fact. So the tragic 'violin tune' doesn't really cut it, nor will it elicit too much (worldwide) sympathy, I'm afraid. Maybe they did not understand that their actions would have such terrible repercussions and that they were not 'invincible'.....and maybe they should have 'thought things through' before embarking on their world domination 'jolly'.

What happened was terrible. War is terrible. That is all.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i am german , and i can understand EVERY allied effort to defeat the german nation that was let by the Nazis during this time. War , and even more WW2 , was no kindergartenparty.
My father was attacked as a 8 yearvold boy walkingbon a fieldway by a low flying allied fighter, luckily he survived. But he has no bad feelings about that, neither me.

Fortunatly the allies won that war for 'us' !

[Sternjaeger II]

Ok you go and explain that to the people that live there, and if we 'proved a point' in 82 then what would be the point of so readily capitulating now? is the Falklands issue purely caused by the British?.....I don't think so, what exactly is the difference in Argentina laying a claim as opposed to the British?
the best move would be to declare the independence of the Islands, it would relax foreign relations and be an example that Great Britain could use in further diplomatic situations.
In theory Argentina has more of a right than Britain to own the islands because of historical and obvious geographical reasons, the British colonisation of the island doesn't justify for its sovereignty. Or shall we let a few thousand people decide for the foreign policy of a country? Truth is that the area has a lot of potential in terms of oil drilling, that's why none of the sides wants to let go of it.


Absolutely.....the same way we have to appreciate that modern Germans have nothing to do with the Nazis, I expect not to be judged by an isolated element of my country.
isolated element? War banter is common to every layer of British society mate, from working class low income football fans to Prince Harry..

[Sternjaeger II]

On a sidenote it is darkly amusing to see the attempts of the nations between the wars to ban deliberate attacks on the civilian population ... and to see which nations deliberately torpedoed any such attempts. Can you guess? Yes, the USA (which at the time of the last attempt was about to roll out the prototype of the B-17) and the United Kingdom (which had used aerial attacks on civilian settlements in "colonial warfare" already). But all of that is history now ...

Hello Thor. What is perhaps even more 'darkly amusing' is to hear Germans waxing lyrical about the 'morality' or otherwise of deliberately and knowingly bombing civilians, a field of endevour that a certain country were quite the originators of and 'experten' in.....dating back to the Zeppelin terror raids of WWI. Thor, 'can you guess' who this country was? :)

British towns and cities, including areas as diverse as Liverpool, the Midlands, my very own Tyneside and nearby Sunderland and even Edinburgh were attacked* with fragmentation bombs and incendiary devices, burning women and children alive and injuring many more. Zeppelin bombing was of course effectively indiscriminate by its very nature.

Perhaps then, it is no surprise when British people are quite dismissive of German lectures on 'morality', seeing them as at best frankly risible.

Murdering and burning UK civilians alive with incendiary's tends to make people a wee bit angry, this tends to result in a desire for retribution. 'An eye for an eye', and all that.

These quotes are all primary sources from the Imperial War Museum and National Archives.


'‘When [the Germans] injure innocent… people they… proclaim it as a great victory and that they have struck terror into the English people in London… Well I can only say this, that it has had the effect of making the Londoners… more determined than ever that the GermHun power shall not only be beaten but ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED out of existence.’ [1]

‘We saw a Zepp the other night… To see the blasted bombs being dropped on helpless civilians and on peaceable houses made the blood go to fever heat and I felt absolutely mad.’ [1]

Journalist J. H. Stapley writing on 5 October 1915 to a friend at the Front

‘Mourners tonight will leave the side of their dead to look into the sky fearfully.
Little children who have… gone to sleep will be awakened and rushed into cellars to save them from death.’

~American journalist William G. Shepherd’s account of London’s third airship raid

During the spring of 1915, Hauptmann Erich Linnarz, captain of Zeppelin LZ38, dropped on Southend (along with his bombs) a placard on which he had written a cryptic message:

'You English. We have come, and will come again soon.

Kill or cure. German.'

These charming German 'love letters' forecasting the English peoples complete annihilation were commonplace. Terribly rum bunch these Huns, What?

Of course, later came the Gotha bomber formation raids en masse causing yet more death and destruction; strategic raids on central London and elsewhere, causing massive damage and killing and maiming many Civilians. Perhaps then, in this light it is understandable that Britain might not have wanted to preclude the possibility of retaliatory strikes against the civilian population of an aggressor, in case it happened again.

Oh wait.....turns out* it actually did! As sure as night follows day. Good call! Didn't see that one coming. Can any member of the class remind me who it was again? ;)

Guernica, the Condor Legion strafing and bombing refugee columns of women and children for 'target practice' for the upcoming war for more 'Lebensraum' and Teutonic world domination, starting the most destructive conflict the world has ever seen (even outdoing the previously gruesome effort) ; civilian bombing of Warsaw, threatening to wipe the cities of the Netherlands off the map unless they surrendered, the list goes on. Not a leg to stand on, sorry......In terms of 'morality', so leave it out please.

If Germany had the capability to erase every British City from the planet, they would have done so without a moments hesitation, or a seconds thought....with no remorse. Fact. So the tragic 'violin tune' doesn't really cut it, nor will it elicit too much (worldwide) sympathy, I'm afraid. Maybe they did not understand that their actions would have such terrible repercussions and that they were not 'invincible'.....and maybe they should have 'thought things through' before embarking on their world domination 'jolly'.

What happened was terrible. War is terrible. That is all.

whilst I completely agree with all that you said, I would like to point out that it's not the point of the discussion. Nobody here reckons that one was better or worse than the other, it's the celebration of it that is out of place.
How would you feel if in Berlin they had a statue of Hermann Goering or the general behind the Zeppelin/Gotha raids? Regardless of the outcome of the war, they were all fighting for their own country, doing their duty, so what makes them worse than Harris (apart for the fact that they were fighting for the wrong cause, which again is only relevant to who actually wins the war)?

[csThor]

Orville

I am in no way denying that Germany also had a part in all of this bloodshed (bombing civilian targets, that is) but I simply refuse to engage in pontificating that "my allied raids on civilian targets are less inhuman than your axis raids on civilian targets" and the attempts to retroactively glorify a strategy that did not only cost seveal hundred thousands of civilian lives but also the lives of over 50000 british aircrew for a complete lack of results.

And I am sure I could find quotes from the german perspective that dance to the same tune as yours, just from the other side, but that would not help anything and merely stir up more discord. In my opinion the use of air power to deliberately attack and destroy purely civilian targets for any kind of reason and from any nation was a despicable act of atrocity. Period.

[bongodriver]

the best move would be to declare the independence of the Islands, it would relax foreign relations and be an example that Great Britain could use in further diplomatic situations.
In theory Argentina has more of a right than Britain to own the islands because of historical and obvious geographical reasons, the British colonisation of the island doesn't justify for its sovereignty. Or shall we let a few thousand people decide for the foreign policy of a country? Truth is that the area has a lot of potential in terms of oil drilling, that's why none of the sides wants to let go of it..

Ok you explain that to the people that live there (they really do matter)

in terms of who has a right to whatever........Argentina should belong to the local indigenous tribes.....oh wait....they're all dead because of Spanish colonisation.

isolated element? War banter is common to every layer of British society mate, from working class low income football fans to Prince Harry..

BS.....pure and simple, Brit bashing is just 'en vogue' for some reason, any 'war banter' that happens here is no different to the 'roast beefs' or 'crazy tea drinkers' banter that everyone else indulges in.

I love the way your topics always involve a 'I love the UK....but'

[Bewolf]

On a sidenote it is darkly amusing to see the attempts of the nations between the wars to ban deliberate attacks on the civilian population ... and to see which nations deliberately torpedoed any such attempts. Can you guess? Yes, the USA (which at the time of the last attempt was about to roll out the prototype of the B-17) and the United Kingdom (which had used aerial attacks on civilian settlements in "colonial warfare" already). But all of that is history now ...

Hello Thor. What is perhaps even more 'darkly amusing' is to hear Germans waxing lyrical about the 'morality' or otherwise of deliberately and knowingly bombing civilians, a field of endevour that a certain country were quite the originators of and 'experten' in.....dating back to the Zeppelin terror raids of WWI. Thor, 'can you guess' who this country was? :)

British towns and cities, including areas as diverse as Liverpool, the Midlands, my very own Tyneside and nearby Sunderland and even Edinburgh were attacked* with fragmentation bombs and incendiary devices, burning women and children alive and injuring many more. Zeppelin bombing was of course effectively indiscriminate by its very nature.

Perhaps then, it is no surprise when British people are quite dismissive of German lectures on 'morality', seeing them as at best frankly risible.

Murdering and burning UK civilians alive with incendiary's tends to make people a wee bit angry, this tends to result in a desire for retribution. 'An eye for an eye', and all that.

These quotes are all primary sources from the Imperial War Museum and National Archives.


'‘When [the Germans] injure innocent… people they… proclaim it as a great victory and that they have struck terror into the English people in London… Well I can only say this, that it has had the effect of making the Londoners… more determined than ever that the GermHun power shall not only be beaten but ABSOLUTELY CRUSHED out of existence.’ [1]

‘We saw a Zepp the other night… To see the blasted bombs being dropped on helpless civilians and on peaceable houses made the blood go to fever heat and I felt absolutely mad.’ [1]

Journalist J. H. Stapley writing on 5 October 1915 to a friend at the Front

‘Mourners tonight will leave the side of their dead to look into the sky fearfully.
Little children who have… gone to sleep will be awakened and rushed into cellars to save them from death.’

~American journalist William G. Shepherd’s account of London’s third airship raid

During the spring of 1915, Hauptmann Erich Linnarz, captain of Zeppelin LZ38, dropped on Southend (along with his bombs) a placard on which he had written a cryptic message:

'You English. We have come, and will come again soon.

Kill or cure. German.'

These charming German 'love letters' forecasting the English peoples complete annihilation were commonplace. Terribly rum bunch these Huns, What?

Of course, later came the Gotha bomber formation raids en masse causing yet more death and destruction; strategic raids on central London and elsewhere, causing massive damage and killing and maiming many Civilians. Perhaps then, in this light it is understandable that Britain might not have wanted to preclude the possibility of retaliatory strikes against the civilian population of an aggressor, in case it happened again.

Oh wait.....turns out* it actually did! As sure as night follows day. Good call! Didn't see that one coming. Can any member of the class remind me who it was again? ;)

Guernica, the Condor Legion strafing and bombing refugee columns of women and children for 'target practice' for the upcoming war for more 'Lebensraum' and Teutonic world domination, starting the most destructive conflict the world has ever seen (even outdoing the previously gruesome effort) ; civilian bombing of Warsaw, threatening to wipe the cities of the Netherlands off the map unless they surrendered, the list goes on. Not a leg to stand on, sorry......In terms of 'morality', so leave it out please.

If Germany had the capability to erase every British City from the planet, they would have done so without a moments hesitation, or a seconds thought....with no remorse. Fact. So the tragic 'violin tune' doesn't really cut it, nor will it elicit too much (worldwide) sympathy, I'm afraid. Maybe they did not understand that their actions would have such terrible repercussions and that they were not 'invincible'.....and maybe they should have 'thought things through' before embarking on their world domination 'jolly'.

What happened was terrible. War is terrible. That is all.

Guys, what you do not get here is that you are not talking to people that participated in or supported that war. On the opposite, this one and all generations since the war actually tried everything possible to make good on it. So giving us quotes and plans from germans from generations before the war does not stick.

[335th_GRAthos]

I just found the perfect quote illustrating the whole problem:
U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs.

The most beautiful definition of what is 'Victor's Justice'! Thanks for sharing that Bewolf.

I am speechless by the exchange of arguments in this thread. I keep my opinion to myself as this is a flight sim forum and not a political history or war history discussion forum.

But I wonder how many of you gentlemen posting these bold statements in the thread, have actually watched the documentary, all the way to the end of it!

:(

~S~

[Bewolf]

the best move would be to declare the independence of the Islands, it would relax foreign relations and be an example that Great Britain could use in further diplomatic situations.
In theory Argentina has more of a right than Britain to own the islands because of historical and obvious geographical reasons, the British colonisation of the island doesn't justify for its sovereignty. Or shall we let a few thousand people decide for the foreign policy of a country? Truth is that the area has a lot of potential in terms of oil drilling, that's why none of the sides wants to let go of it.


isolated element? War banter is common to every layer of British society mate, from working class low income football fans to Prince Harry..

Must disagree here. The Argies do the same things the british do, claiming something on the grounds of their forefathers. Fact is, however, that the Falklands have been british for ages and belong to a fomerly uninhabited island. It's always about people and what they call their home, and if these people feel british, and obviously they do, then it is their own chosing to stay there and within the UK. Neither Britian nor Argentina ought to have a say in the descisions of the people living there. And those you can't blame or steal their homes for the mistakes and maybe criminal behaviour of some admirals several generations ago.

[bongodriver]

The most beautiful definition of what is 'Victor's Justice'! Thanks for sharing that Bewolf.

I am speechless by the exchange of arguments in this thread. I keep my opinion to myself as this is a flight sim forum and not a political history or war history discussion forum.

But I wonder how many of you gentlemen posting these bold statements in the thread, have actually watched the documentary, all the way to the end of it!

:(

~S~

I did...and the funny thing is I didn't get an overwhelming urge to jump up and down my street shouting 'we won'....'2 world wars and 1 world cup dooo dah!'.......believe it or not.

[Bewolf]

I did...and the funny thing is I didn't get an overwhelming urge to jump up and down my street shouting 'we won'....'2 world wars and 1 world cup dooo dah!'.......believe it or not.

Neither do I feel like shooting the gypsie next door or go on a fun trip through Poland.
But then again I also do not try to justify general criminal behaviour.

[bongodriver]

Neither do I feel like shooting the gypsie next door or go on a fun trip through Poland.
But then again I also do not try to justify general criminal behaviour.

Why? whats wrong with Poland, I thinks it's quite nice, the old town in Warsaw is lovely and the people are really nice too.

not sure what you mean with the rest.

[csThor]

You need to check your irony detector, Bongo. As a german Bewolf is hinting at the same old stereotypes Germany vs Poland that float around since times long forgotten ... ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

Ok you explain that to the people that live there (they really do matter)
a land's sovereignty is not to be decided by who lives on it. According to your reasoning, the people that got evicted from Dale Farm should have been given the right to stay there because they've been (illegally) squatting there for years..

in terms of who has a right to whatever........Argentina should belong to the local indigenous tribes.....oh wait....they're all dead because of Spanish colonisation.

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The fact is that together with its independence, Argentina as it is now received in 1811 the Malvinas from Spain, but Argentinians were kicked out in 1833 because of a British majority on the island. So of course most of the population is of British descendant, this doesn't make it more British. Again, the Dale Farm analogy applies.
Plus hey, it's on the other bloody emisphere, bang in front of Argentina, so maybe it all looks a bit ridiculous and colonialist?
But then again the UK couldn't even let go of Ireland, preferring to shed innocents' blood to keep hold of that. How would you feel if someone from the other emisphere would come in front of our seas and claim the islands as theirs because there's a majority of foreigners living on those islands? Wouldn't you feel threatened and be suspicious about the other country?


BS.....pure and simple, Brit bashing is just 'en vogue' for some reason, any 'war banter' that happens here is no different to the 'roast beefs' or 'crazy tea drinkers' banter that everyone else indulges in.

I love the way your topics always involve a 'I love the UK....but'

Oh puh-lease!!! It's EVERYWHERE: TV, media, even in common language ("grammar-Nazi").. truth is that it's considered a tongue-in-cheek topic, and for some reason having been among the winner means that one should feel entitled to endlessly talk about it.

And yes, I love this country, I abide by its laws, I pay the taxes, I contribute to my community, and if there's something that is not good or could be improved I voice my opinion for the sake of the country itself. I am a better person since I live here, because I know there's the moral grounds for a better society, I never thought the same of my own country.
The fact that I'm of foreign origins doesn't mean I'm less of a citizen, so stop playing that card with me Bongo.

[Sternjaeger II]

Must disagree here. The Argies do the same things the british do, claiming something on the grounds of their forefathers. Fact is, however, that the Falklands have been british for ages and belong to a fomerly uninhabited island. It's always about people and what they call their home, and if these people feel british, and obviously they do, then it is their own chosing to stay there and within the UK. Neither Britian nor Argentina ought to have a say in the descisions of the people living there. And those you can't blame or steal their homes for the mistakes and maybe criminal behaviour of some admirals several generations ago.

No. Argentina received the Malvinas from Spain in 1811 when it became independent, it's a FACT. The fact that in the meantime British colonies had settled in and kicked out the Argentinians is irrelevant and should be treated as an invasion.

As I said, the ideal solution would be for both countries to let go and let the Falklands be an independent reality. Listening to the majority of the inhabitants, who are of British descent for obvious reasons, is a bit biased, don't you think?

[bongodriver]

a land's sovereignty is not to be decided by who lives on it. According to your reasoning, the people that got evicted from Dale Farm should have been given the right to stay there because they've been (illegally) squatting there for years..

Really?......so a country can just invade another rightfully because the inhabitants have no right of sovereignty......interesting point of view.

The Dale farm residents were evicted because they were there 'illegally'....hence why they were evicted.......ever heard of planning permission? they should have been evicted earlier but in this over beaurocratic country things take forever to process.

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The fact is that together with its independence, Argentina as it is now received in 1811 the Malvinas from Spain, but Argentinians were kicked out in 1833 because of a British majority on the island. So of course most of the population is of British descendant, this doesn't make it more British. Again, the Dale Farm analogy applies.
Plus hey, it's on the other bloody emisphere, bang in front of Argentina, so maybe it all looks a bit ridiculous and colonialist?

it makes perfect sense, by your own logic the islands never belonged to the Spanish to give away in the first place.....they were very different times mate.

Oh puh-lease!!! It's EVERYWHERE: TV, media, even in common language ("grammar-Nazi").. truth is that it's considered a tongue-in-cheek topic, and for some reason having been among the winner means that one should feel entitled to endlessly talk about it.

There you go confusing Germans with Nazis again

And yes, I love this country, I abide by its laws, I pay the taxes, I contribute to my community, and if there's something that is not good or could be improved I voice my opinion for the sake of the country itself. I am a better person since I live here, because I know there's the moral grounds for a better society, I never thought the same of my own country.
The fact that I'm of foreign origins doesn't mean I'm less of a citizen, so stop playing that card with me Bongo.

I already mentioned my heritage before, no cards being played here.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Greets all. Ok, a number of people have responded so I'll try to answer each in turn.

@Stern. I was answering directly to a point raised by Thor, the 'discussion' has little to do with the OP at present anyway, even morphing into a Falklands debate now apparently. :)

To answer the point though, I do not particularly 'agree' with the celebration of Harris at all, and do not do so myself. Neither however do I particularly single him out, as Dutch has pointed out he has been made a 'scapegoat' by the latte drinking Guardianista type PC brigade, when far more were actually involved including Churchill himself at the highest level.

so what makes them worse than Harris (apart for the fact that they were fighting for the wrong cause, which again is only relevant to who actually wins the war)?

There is such a thing as a 'just war'. This was an example, in the case of fighting National Socialism, which most sane people would agree on. What we can debate of course is the prosecution of that war, and things like area bombing by all nations, which I do happen to believe was immoral. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight though, and a pile of history books decades later.

@Thor

I am in no way denying that Germany also had a part in all of this bloodshed (bombing civilian targets, that is) but I simply refuse to engage in pontificating that "my allied raids on civilian targets are less inhuman than your axis raids on civilian targets" and the attempts to retroactively glorify a strategy that did not only cost seveal hundred thousands of civilian lives but also the lives of over 50000 british aircrew for a complete lack of results.

Agreed. Nowhere did I write, and nor do I believe that "my allied raids on civilian targets are less inhuman than your axis raids on civilian targets", neither was any attempt made to 'retro-actively' glorify anything. Neither can be 'morally superior' to the other........neither can ever be 'right' from a Humanitarian standpoint, but 'welcome to war'. Since when did Humanity or niceties have anything to do with it.

@Bewolf

Guys, what you do not get here is that you are not talking to people that participated in or supported that war. On the opposite, this one and all generations since the war actually tried everything possible to make good on it. So giving us quotes and plans from germans from generations before the war does not stick.

I disagree, and it is very pertinent to the discussion. Here is why. Harris was an RFC fighter ace with 5 victories, and had also witnessed the results of the Zeppelin and Gotha bombings of British civilians in WWI with his own eyes.

Having witnessed the lack of German compunction or concern about killing and maiming 1000's British civilians with bombs and incendiaries from the air circa 1915 onwards, I believe this would have had a profound effect upon his outlook regarding Germany, and was probably a contributory factor to the ruthlessness he later evidenced whilst in command in WWII.

The reason I posted the info was to illustrate how these aerial attacks on civilians had a profound effect upon the British psyche, remaining in memory.....and influencing public opinion and indeed official policy in WWII. An overwhelming sense of 'Deja Vu'. Perhaps fostering a determination not to let the same thing happen again....and that next time the enemy will suffer more. Its the 'tit for tat' phenomena evidenced in all conflicts, of all nations and people, which typically escalates.

In conclusion, area bombing was in my opinion undoubtedly 'wrong' on a moral basis, and most certainly nothing to celebrate....but this is easy to say now without personal involvement, and with hindsight. However, had my entire extended family and children been wiped out in the Blitz, I daresay I might be after some form of 'payback', and perhaps even celebrate the enemy suffering as I did, or maybe wanting them to suffer even more.

I can also see the viewpoints of the Bomber pilots in the documentary who expressed little to no remorse, too.....and their reasons for this. I can also understand the British peoples anger, and thoughts of retribution. Its the Human condition and there has never been any real abatement. The age old story of violence begetting violence....which ultimately does nobody any good.

A wise Mahatma once said that 'An eye for an eye.....Will make us all blind'.

He was right.

Cheers. :)

[Bewolf]

@Bewolf

Guys, what you do not get here is that you are not talking to people that participated in or supported that war. On the opposite, this one and all generations since the war actually tried everything possible to make good on it. So giving us quotes and plans from germans from generations before the war does not stick.

I disagree, and it is very pertinent to the discussion. Here is why. Harris was an RFC fighter ace with 5 victories, and had also witnessed the results of the Zeppelin and Gotha bombings of British civilians in WWI with his own eyes.

Having witnessed the lack of German compunction or concern about killing and maiming 1000's British civilians with bombs and incendiaries from the air circa 1915 onwards, I believe this would have had a profound effect upon his outlook regarding Germany, and was probably a contributory factor to the ruthlessness he later evidenced whilst in command in WWII.

The reason I posted the info was to illustrate how these aerial attacks on civilians had a profound effect upon the British psyche, remaining in memory.....and influencing public opinion and indeed official policy in WWII. An overwhelming sense of 'Deja Vu'. Perhaps fostering a determination not to let the same thing happen again....and that next time the enemy will suffer more. Its the 'tit for tat' phenomena evidenced in all conflicts, of all nations and people, which typically escalates.

In conclusion, area bombing was in my opinion undoubtedly 'wrong' on a moral basis, and most certainly nothing to celebrate....but this is easy to say now without personal involvement, and with hindsight. However, had my entire extended family and children been wiped out in the Blitz, I daresay I might be after some form of 'payback', and perhaps even celebrate the enemy suffering as I did, or maybe wanting them to suffer even more.

I can also see the viewpoints of the Bomber pilots in the documentary who expressed little to no remorse, too.....and their reasons for this. I can also understand the British peoples anger, and thoughts of retribution. Its the Human condition and there has never been any real abatement. The age old story of violence begetting violence....which ultimately does nobody any good.

A wise Mahatma once said that 'An eye for an eye.....Will make us all blind'.

He was right.

Cheers. :)

Great fan of Gandhi here. And actually, of your later stance in your posting.
But your post is kinda contractionary, because by honoring people like Harries you are exactly stirring the pot that make ppl have that "eye for an eye" attitude on all sides involved.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I do not particularly 'agree' with the celebration of Harris at all, and do not do so myself.

by honoring people like Harris you are exactly stirring the pot that make ppl have that "eye for an eye" attitude on all sides involved.

:confused:

(sorry Orville, I know you don't need my help. ;) )

[bongodriver]

it's crazy.......do people really think we Brits go around chanting songs about this guy? and have 'National Harris day' or something.......nope, just a tiny statue tucked away in a corner (I don't even remember where)

They made Nelson Mandela a president....and he was a Terrorist (freedom fighter to the right on! brigade)....either way he killed innocent people pursuing his cause.

[ATAG_Dutch]

And next thing you know, we'll be told that we have to give the Channel Islands back to France, owing to their obvious geographical proximity.

[bongodriver]

and then well have to hand GB over too because of our proximity........oh wait..

[Sternjaeger II]

Really?......so a country can just invade another rightfully because the inhabitants have no right of sovereignty......interesting point of view.

The Dale farm residents were evicted because they were there 'illegally'....hence why they were evicted.......ever heard of planning permission? they should have been evicted earlier but in this over beaurocratic country things take forever to process.

it makes perfect sense, by your own logic the islands never belonged to the Spanish to give away in the first place.....they were very different times mate.

Bongo, don't twist the facts to your advantage...



There you go confusing Germans with Nazis again

:confused:

[Sternjaeger II]

you just simply, stubbornly don't want to understand what we're saying. It's not the first time, nor it won't be the last, especially when it comes to question the unquestionable United Kingdom.. ironically it's this denial that does more harm than good to this wonderful country..

Anyway, I'm happy with the "agree to disagree" formula.. ;)

[bongodriver]

you just simply, stubbornly don't want to understand what we're saying. It's not the first time, nor it won't be the last, especially when it comes to question the unquestionable United Kingdom.. ironically it's this denial that does more harm than good to this wonderful country..

Anyway, I'm happy with the "agree to disagree" formula.. ;)

What is it we are denying?

Bongo, don't twist the facts to your advantage...

Facts are facts.....where did I twist them, you said in plain english..

a land's sovereignty is not to be decided by who lives on it

I'm not stubborn, I'm just not convinced in any way by what you are saying.

I am happy to agree to disagree too, hence why I'm here disagreeing....if you promise to stop 'Brit bashing' then I promise to stop disagreeing with you....hows that?

[bongodriver]

There you go confusing Germans with Nazis again

What I meant by this is........surely there is nothing bad about using the term nazi for a form of derogation, you seem to assume that any time a phrase involving the word Nazi what is really meant is German.......this is just not the case.......no such phrase as 'Grammar German'

or are you really just trying to defend Nazis......I'm confused now

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ok chaps, here's a thought.

Hugo Sperrle was in charge of Luftflotte 3, and 'responsible' for the Nov 14th 1940 raid on Coventry.

'The raid reached such a new level of destruction that Joseph Goebbels later used the term Coventriert ("Coventrated") when describing similar levels of destruction of other enemy towns. During the raid, the Germans dropped about 500 tonnes of high explosives, including 50 parachute air-mines, of which 20 were incendiary petroleum mines, and 36,000 incendiary bombs.'

Hugo Sperrle was aquitted at Nuremburg.

Should the British campaign to have this verdict overturned?

Of course not.

[Bewolf]

Ok chaps, here's a thought.

Hugo Sperrle was in charge of Luftflotte 3, and 'responsible' for the Nov 14th raid on Coventry.

'The raid reached such a new level of destruction that Joseph Goebbels later used the term Coventriert ("Coventrated") when describing similar levels of destruction of other enemy towns. During the raid, the Germans dropped about 500 tonnes of high explosives, including 50 parachute air-mines, of which 20 were incendiary petroleum mines, and 36,000 incendiary bombs.'

Hugo Sperrle was aquitted at Nuremburg.

Should the British campaign to have this verdict overturned?

Of course not.

Now just imagine Germany would start celebrating Sperrle and start building statues to his honor. Throw in some medals for the brave men that brought the war to the enemy.
That would be a bit closer to the issue at hand.

[=CfC= Father Ted]

I thought the bit where Colin MacGregor struggled to keep the DC3 straight during take off was quite interesting.

[Bewolf]

You see guys, if the RAF was only out there to bomb industrial targets, like the US did in Europe, with collateral damage in the civilian populations taken into account, then still uncool, but that is war.
"Intentionally" targetting civilians is what is the issue here. That is entering german territory in regards to the treatment of innocent human beings. Even the Russians did not go this far but a very short period at the end of the war.
I can't help but to think that you are aware of that. And if you are, then what are we argueing about?

[bongodriver]

Now just imagine Germany would start celebrating Sperrle and start building statues to his honor. Throw in some medals for the brave men that brought the war to the enemy.
That would be a bit closer to the issue at hand.

Personally I wouldn't raise an eyebrow....it's your country, do what you want in it, just don't build your statues here.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Now just imagine Germany would start celebrating Sperrle and start building statues to his honor. Throw in some medals for the brave men that brought the war to the enemy.
That would be a bit closer to the issue at hand.

Possibly. But then Sperrle and his brave men were fighting a war on behalf of, and for the perpetuation of, Nazi political doctrines - as opposed to a war against them, were they not?

The issue isn't one of celebrating the killing of civilians, it's an issue of comemmorating the defeat of Nazism and the individuals who contributed towards this end.

As Bongo pointed out, the British don't 'celebrate' Harris, but there is a statue of him, along with one of Dowding and lots of Churchill.

[bongodriver]

You see guys, if the RAF was only out there to bomb industrial targets, like the US did in Europe, with collateral damage in the civilian populations taken into account, then still uncool, but that is war.
"Intentionally" targetting civilians is what is the issue here. That is entering german territory in regards to the treatment of innocent human beings. Even the Russians did not go this far but a very short period at the end of the war.
I can't help but to think that you are aware of that. And if you are, then what are we argueing about?

I'm not sure what we are arguing about either, everybody agrees intentionally targeting civvies is bad, but I think it is being suggested it was a one sided affair i.e. only the British did it........which we also all know is utter BS.

it's just a shame Hitler didn't surrender....would have saved alot of lives.

[kendo65]

Concerning the earlier reference to the Falklands situation,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/22/argentinian-intellectuals-question-falklands

Is it just me or does the current Argentinian premier come across a little like a South American Sarah Palin? Her comments regarding the British sending a 'destroyer' (with emphasis on the alleged threatening character of the word) were more than a little ludicrous imo

[ATAG_Dutch]

Let's not forget that racism was still very strong in the '40s:

:lol:

Sorry, just re-read the thread. Must've missed the opportunity for that one previously. :lol: - Again.

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm not sure what we are arguing about either, everybody agrees intentionally targeting civvies is bad, but I think it is being suggested it was a one sided affair i.e. only the British did it........which we also all know is utter BS.

it's just a shame Hitler didn't surrender....would have saved alot of lives.

oh don't be daft Bongo, we're not saying only the British did it, what we're saying is that the celebration of the men who created and perpetrated such policies is out of place, and poses a questionable double standard, period.

Uh and I prefer your mugshot than this new profile pic btw ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

:lol:

Sorry, just re-read the thread. Must've missed the opportunity for that one previously. :lol: - Again.

what's so funny about it? :confused:

[bongodriver]

oh don't be daft Bongo, we're not saying only the British did it, what we're saying is that the celebration of the men who created and perpetrated such policies is out of place, and poses a questionable double standard, period.

Uh and I prefer your mugshot than this new profile pic btw ;)

But I will have to say again that the British SIMPLY DO NOT celebrate Harris.

yes I guess Harris did employ a 'double standard' but at the time I'm guessing nobody minded so much.....too busy picking bodies out of the rubble after the indiscriminate attacks from german bombers V1's and V2's and strafing attacks on civillians by fighters (yes it happened, my father saw it)

one big difference was the allies dropped leaflets before the raids, giving warning what was likely to happen......I don't believe that courtesy was extended the other way.....unless the warnings were sticky taped to the nose cone of a V2.


I like the zippy pic.

[Sternjaeger II]

But I will have to say again that the British SIMPLY DO NOT celebrate Harris.

yes I guess Harris did employ a 'double standard' but at the time I'm guessing nobody minded so much.....too busy picking bodies out of the rubble after the indiscriminate attacks from german bombers V1's and V2's and strafing attacks on civillians by fighters (yes it happened, my father saw it)

one big difference was the allies dropped leaflets before the raids, giving warning what was likely to happen......I don't believe that courtesy was extended the other way.....unless the warnings were sticky taped to the nose cone of a V2.


I like the zippy pic.

So what's a statue if not a celebration of someone? :confused:

[bongodriver]

So what's a statue if not a celebration of someone? :confused:

a reminder?.......

next time theres a 'Harris day parade' then let me know, somehow it just seems to evade the calendar through lack of publicity.

[Hood]

I'm struggling to think of anyone military we celebrate as a nation in the UK, or any military event. I guess D-Day and Battle of Britain day get a small mention but that's it. Like most countries we remember and honour the dead and the sacrifice they made.

I also view statues as reminders, not as glorification of the individual. Statues don't mean anything unless you know who the person was. As the biggest bogey man in history I'd even say Hitler deserves a statue. Problem is it wouldn't be a focus for reflection on mankind's predilection for tragedy but would be a symbol for Nazis everywhere and it might be viewed as celebratory in that context. I guess that is a thought for another time and place.

Hood

[ATAG_Dutch]

Celebrate - mark with a festival or special event

Commemorate (relating to stone, plaque etc) - be a memorial of.

Definitions from OED.

And Stern, if you can't see what was funny about that statement, given the bases of National Socialism, I'm not going to help.

[Sternjaeger II]

Celebrate - mark with a festival or special event

Commemorate (relating to stone, plaque etc) - be a memorial of.

Definitions from OED.

Fine, why does Bomber Harris deserve a memorial then? I understand a memorial for bomber command, who celebrates everybody, but the memorial of the bomber command by means of the statue of a single controversial general? I am quite surprised you don't see my point.


And Stern, if you can't see what was funny about that statement, given the bases of National Socialism, I'm not going to help.

ah, I imagined it would have been another of your patronising comments, what I don't understand though is why everything has to be a comparison to Nazis?! We were talking about racial segregation in other countries, not Germany :confused:

the US were a racist country with or without the Nazis, which ran on a completely different agenda apparently:

This is the (in)famous sentence that the Tuskegee Airman Alexander Jefferson once said about his life as a POW and his comeback to the US: "Having been treated in Nazi capture like every other Allied officer, as we disembarked from the troop ship, a white soldier at the bottom of the gangplank shouted: “Whites to the right, n*****s to the left.” I replied: “Goddammit, nothing has changed!”

[Sternjaeger II]

a reminder?.......

next time theres a 'Harris day parade' then let me know, somehow it just seems to evade the calendar through lack of publicity.

..a reminder? Of what exactly? Of area bombing? Because when I google Sir Arthur Harris the first thing that comes out it's his Area Bombing thing..

It's like saying "Oh, I will make a statue of Mussolini because he improved the rail system and introduced the pension schemes, just as a reminder you know.." :rolleyes:

this is when you get desperate for some sense Bongo, your explanation really doesn't compute :confused:

[bongodriver]

Fine, why does Bomber Harris deserve a memorial then? I understand a memorial for bomber command, who celebrates everybody, but the memorial of the bomber command by means of the statue of a single controversial general? I am quite surprised you don't see my point.

I think we get your point, but are not entirely sure it needs to be highlighted as any proof that as a nation the UK 'celebrate' the killing of civillians, thats just ridiculous, it is merely reminding us of the existence of this character and what he accomplished (good and bad).


ah, I imagined it would have been another of your patronising comments, what I don't understand though is why everything has to be a comparison to Nazis?! We were talking about racial segregation in other countries, not Germany :confused:

the US were a racist country with or without the Nazis, which ran on a completely different agenda apparently:

This is the (in)famous sentence that the Tuskegee Airman Alexander Jefferson once said about his life as a POW and his comeback to the US: "Having been treated in Nazi capture like every other Allied officer, as we disembarked from the troop ship, a white soldier at the bottom of the gangplank shouted: “Whites to the right, n*****s to the left.” I replied: “Goddammit, nothing has changed!”


Again everyone is aware of this.........relevance to the OP is a bit lost.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Possibly. But then Sperrle and his brave men were fighting a war on behalf of, and for the perpetuation of, Nazi political doctrines - as opposed to a war against them, were they not?

The issue isn't one of celebrating the killing of civilians, it's an issue of commemorating the defeat of Nazism and the individuals who contributed towards this end.

As Bongo pointed out, the British don't 'celebrate' Harris, but there is a statue of him, along with one of Dowding and lots of Churchill.

Surely I don't have to literally repeat myself?

You yourself have used the phrase 'Let's not forget' in a singularly 'patronising' statement. Memorials are placed expressly for this purpose.

What you think of the individual is quite up to you, but it is important to remember, don't you think? Children point and ask questions, also a good thing.

[bongodriver]

..a reminder? Of what exactly? Of area bombing? Because when I google Sir Arthur Harris the first thing that comes out it's his Area Bombing thing..

It's like saying "Oh, I will make a statue of Mussolini because he improved the rail system and introduced the pension schemes, just as a reminder you know.." :rolleyes:

this is when you get desperate for some sense Bongo, your explanation really doesn't compute :confused:

Yes.....why not? why not remind the world of terrible events in history and the people involved, no I will stick to my explanations in comfort, I obviously don't need to come to terms with anything, whatever you choose to represent Bomber command anybody wanting to find out more will eventually discover Arthur Harris.

Theres a waxwork of Hitler at Madame Tussauds, obviously your interpretation of what a statue or likeness is designed to achieve is different from most others.

Google is completely irrelevant in this whole discussion, when I google the same I find the Wiki which clearly mentions all the controvesy surroundin him and the statue, but reminds us of why the 'veterans' themselves sanctioned it.

I don't get desparate at all, but your need to prove the UK is some sort of maniacal German hating nation seems very desparate and computes even less.

[Sternjaeger II]

Surely I don't have to literally repeat myself?

You yourself have used the phrase 'Let's not forget' in a singularly 'patronising' statement. Memorials are placed expressly for this purpose.


Exactly. So the message that one conveys should be: "Let's not forget that this man caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides", right?


What you think of the individual is quite up to you, but it is important to remember, don't you think? Children point and ask questions, also a good thing.

I agree, but there are different methods of remembering, I'm sure that kids can wait to get a bit older before they learn about the endeavours of Harris.
The darkest chapter of the RAF surely doesn't deserve a statue of his mastermind.

[ATAG_Dutch]

a full figure statue was meant as a commemorative form reserved for men that acted for the good of their own country, contributing in some substantial, determining and above all exemplar way.

My bold.

Yes.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yes.....why not? why not remind the world of terrible events in history and the people involved, no I will stick to my explanations in comfort, I obviously don't need to come to terms with anything, whatever you choose to represent Bomber command anybody wanting to find out more will eventually discover Arthur Harris.
right, so according to your arm-twisting logic, it would be ok to have a statue of Gary Glitter for his "musical achievements"?

Do you even hear how ludicrous what you're saying is?
Last time I checked in the encyclopaedia of common sense, a full figure statue was meant as a celebrative form reserved for men that acted for the good of their own country, contributing in some substantial, determining and above all exemplar way.

And still you like to hide behind the curtain of "stop bashing the Brits you ungrateful bugger!".. if I made the statement about Hitler's statue that Hood did, god knows what you would have accused me of..


Theres a waxwork of Hitler at Madame Tussauds, obviously your interpretation of what a statue or likeness is designed to achieve is different from most others.

a waxwork that has been the object of many critics and damage apparently.. I don't think it's a good idea, especially when people take pictures with it.. it's twisted and resembles how light heartedly some people take the whole matter, turning one of the most twisted dictators of history into a tourist attraction is despicable.

Google is completely irrelevant in this whole discussion, when I google the same I find the Wiki which clearly mentions all the controvesy surroundin him and the statue, but reminds us of why the 'veterans' themselves sanctioned it.

I don't get desparate at all, but your need to prove the UK is some sort of maniacal German hating nation seems very desparate and computes even less.

you always have to generalise. It's not like the whole UK agrees about that statue as you know, that's my point. I just find it intolerable, like I wouldn't like a statue of Mussolini, Pol-Pot, Bin Laden etc...

[Sternjaeger II]

My bold.

Yes.

commemorate |kəˈmeməˌrāt|
verb [ with obj. ]
recall and show respect for (someone or something) in a ceremony: a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead.
• serve as a memorial to: a stone commemorating a boy who died at sea.
• celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something: it was a night commemorated in a song.

[winny]

right, so according to your arm-twisting logic, it would be ok to have a statue of Gary Glitter for his "musical achievements"?

Do you even hear how ludicrous what you're saying is?
Last time I checked in the encyclopaedia of common sense, a full figure statue was meant as a celebrative form reserved for men that acted for the good of their own country, contributing in some substantial, determining and above all exemplar way.

And still you like to hide behind the curtain of "stop bashing the Brits you ungrateful bugger!".. if I made the statement about Hitler's statue that Hood did, god knows what you would have accused me of..


a waxwork that has been the object of many critics and damage apparently.. I don't think it's a good idea, especially when people take pictures with it.. it's twisted and resembles how light heartedly some people take the whole matter, turning one of the most twisted dictators of history into a tourist attraction is despicable.


you always have to generalise. It's not like the whole UK agrees about that statue as you know, that's my point. I just find it intolerable, like I wouldn't like a statue of Mussolini, Pol-Pot, Bin Laden etc...

You're comparing Harris to Bin-laden? That's a little extreme...

[Sternjaeger II]

You're comparing Harris to Bin-laden? That's a little extreme...

well maybe, but there's a lot of people out there that still thinks he did a great deal of good to human kind :(

[bongodriver]

right, so according to your arm-twisting logic, it would be ok to have a statue of Gary Glitter for his "musical achievements"?

I will do one of your responses here.......:rolleyes:


you always have to generalise. It's not like the whole UK agrees about that statue as you know, that's my point. I just find it intolerable, like I wouldn't like a statue of Mussolini, Pol-Pot, Bin Laden etc...

Ok so you aren't generalising the UK, thats nice to hear finally, so why exactly have we been debating, you heard what the general oppinion is of Harris's statue......controversy and division, hardly a united front bowing down at it's feet.

And still you like to hide behind the curtain of "stop bashing the Brits you ungrateful bugger!".. if I made the statement about Hitler's statue that Hood did, god knows what you would have accused me of..

But you really do alot of Brit bashing, almost every thread like this one you seem to get involved with accusations of Nationalist bias....blah blah, no hiding behind the curtain for you........and as a Brit I find it offensive.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Exactly. So the message that one conveys should be: "Let's not forget that this man caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides", right?

The darkest chapter of the RAF surely doesn't deserve a statue of his mastermind.

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

[Sternjaeger II]

I will do one of your responses here.......:rolleyes:
well, there you go. You think it's silly, so do I. In the end of the day what specific achievements did the Area Bombing of Harris generate? None. Without even going into the moral aspect of things, under a military point of view, the logistic strain and the price toll in terms of crews and aircraft he caused didn't justify his strategy, am I wrong? The fact that a selected number of airmen show devotion for their commander doesn't necessarily mean he did the right thing, does it?


Ok so you aren't generalising the UK, thats nice to hear finally, so why exactly have we been debating, you heard what the general oppinion is of Harris's statue......controversy and division, hardly a united front bowing down at it's feet.

Once again, and I'll make it bold so hopefully it will stay: it's not a general attack to the UK, it's finding controversial and unnecessarily provocative to raise a full body monument to Bomber Harris and trying to make it more acceptable by dedicating it to the Bomber Command, it's like making a fullsize monument in the shape of the A-Bomb and dedicating it to the USAAF.


But you really do alot of Brit bashing, almost every thread like this one you seem to get involved with accusations of Nationalist bias....blah blah, no hiding behind the curtain for you........and as a Brit I find it offensive.

So what? I do a lot of other bashing too, it just happens to be that when I bash the Brit it generates an uncommonly self-righteous tirade.. I wonder why? :confused:

[Sternjaeger II]

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

Apart for my personal judgement on Churchill's role in the whole affair (which again is not pretty clear, since the pressure for the "go" on the area bombing was coming from different fronts, he never was particularly fond of it, as it emerged in several private letters that came out), I normally think that one should avoid erecting statues of political leaders (let alone military ones!), especially if they were involved in controversial decisions.

[PeterPanPan]

You're comparing Harris to Bin-laden? That's a little extreme...

+1 ... a rather thoughtless comparison indeed. (Can't believe this thread is still going ... oops, I'm partly to blame ;))

[Sternjaeger II]

+1 ... a rather thoughtless comparison indeed. (Can't believe this thread is still going ... oops, I'm partly to blame ;))

it is if you keep on looking at things with a Western perspective..

[ATAG_Dutch]

Apart for my personal judgement on Churchill's role in the whole affair (which again is not pretty clear, since the pressure for the "go" on the area bombing was coming from different fronts, he never was particularly fond of it, as it emerged in several private letters that came out), I normally think that one should avoid erecting statues of political leaders (let alone military ones!), especially if they were involved in controversial decisions.

Ah, so what we Brits really need to do is tear down all statues of former political and military leaders, including statues of previous monarchs, such as Queen and Empress of India, Victoria and King Richard I (who was French after all), because they were all involved in some form of international nastiness with controversial motives?
Such that all immigrants from any nation or religious persuasion who wish to live in this 'wonderful country' won't be offended in any way?

Right on brother! Or as Orville might say, 'can I have a dash of chocolate in my latte please?'

[bongodriver]

it is if you keep on looking at things with a Western perspective..

one of the most pointless statements yet hits the Nail on the head, you keep demanding people look at things from another perspective, you are failing to look at things from others perspectives yourself, all this 'self righteous tirade' stuff you keep bringing up, you are failing to view it from a Brits perspective.....I wonder why :rolleyes:
if only Bin Laden looked at things from a Western perspective and we looked at things from a Middle Eastern perspective......what total rubbish, never changes the fact we are Western and Bin Laden is Middle Easten....what...once we take a minute to think about each others situation there will be world peace....oh puhlease!!!

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about all this 'history is written by the winners', blah blah.....Britain has nothing to be ashamed of, nobody will 'ever' have a spotless record in their conducts in events like wars, Harris is a dark smudge on ours, personally I couldn't care less if we have a statue of him or not, as long as the bravery of the crews is still represented in some way.


Once again, and I'll make it bold so hopefully it will stay: it's not a general attack to the UK, it's finding controversial and unnecessarily provocative to raise a full body monument to Bomber Harris and trying to make it more acceptable by dedicating it to the Bomber Command, it's like making a fullsize monument in the shape of the A-Bomb and dedicating it to the USAAF.

I will answer in bold too 'it was the veterans of Bomber command that approved a Harris statue!'

I suggest you go find an old bomber command veteran and tell him what you think.

[Sternjaeger II]

Ah, so what we Brits really need to do is tear down all statues of former political and military leaders, including statues of previous monarchs, such as Queen and Empress of India, Victoria and King Richard I (who was French after all), because they were all involved in some form of international nastiness with controversial motives?
Such that all immigrants from any nation or religious persuasion who wish to live in this 'wondeful country' won't be offended in any way?

Right on brother! Or as Orville might say, 'can I have a dash of chocolate in my latte please?'

..that's exactly what I mean, huge chip on the shoulder all the way :-|

Have I said that? No.

And I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but you keep on blaming "immigrants", while I'd like to point out that even British citizen did not agree with the memorial on Harris and the statue was repeatedly vandalised. http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v08n3p15.htm

Stop derailing the whole thing to further blabber (more than what it is anyway) and answer my question: do you really think that Sir Arthur Harris deserves a statue for his achievements in WW2 as leader of Bomber Command?

[Sternjaeger II]

one of the most pointless statements yet hits the Nail on the head, you keep demanding people look at things from another perspective, you are failing to look at things from others perspectives yourself, all this 'self righteous tirade' stuff you keep bringing up, you are failing to view it from a Brits perspective.....I wonder why :rolleyes:
if only Bin Laden looked at things from a Western perspective and we looked at things from a Middle Eastern perspective......what total rubbish, never changes the fact we are Western and Bin Laden is Middle Easten....what...once we take a minute to think about each others situation there will be world peace....oh puhlease!!!

..you should seriously consider changing your nickname to "word-twister". The whole point is that you can ONLY see this topic with a self-righteous point of view, and as soon as somebody makes a valid point and questions how Area Bombing was against the Geneva convention and morally awful (other than useless), you cry "but they did it too!!!". SO?! We all know what the Nazis did, we're not questioning that, we're wondering why the crimes that YOU committed are more tolerable than the ones of the enemy, so much that you feel entitled to erect a statue as memory of it. Don't you REALLY see the twisted logic in this?!


I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about all this 'history is written by the winners', blah blah.....Britain has nothing to be ashamed of, nobody will 'ever' have a spotless record in their conducts in events like wars, Harris is a dark smudge on ours, personally I couldn't care less if we have a statue of him or not, as long as the bravery of the crews is still represented in some way.

History IS written by the winners, if you don't even accept that then there's no point in carrying on with this conversation. And the bravery of the crews is not represented by a statue of Harris! It wasn't Harris that sat in those bombers at night, he was comfortably sitting in his office giving orders.


I will answer in bold too 'it was the veterans of Bomber command that approved a Harris statue!'

I suggest you go find an old bomber command veteran and tell him what you think.

naaaah, get your facts right man. It's the Arthur Harris Trust that did it, and they got support from the vets because they cunningly presented it as the sole Bomber Command memorial. I completely agree about the new monument for Bomber Command for instance, but not the Harris one, capisc'?!

As for what the vets think: I'm sure you know that there are SS vets that still think they were doing the right thing, so what shall we make of that?

[PeterPanPan]

it is if you keep on looking at things with a Western perspective..

Amazing logic! If I look at this with an Eastern, Southern or Northern perspective, it is STILL a thoughtless comparison.

[ATAG_Dutch]

..that's exactly what I mean, huge chip on the shoulder all the way :-|

Have I said that? No.

And I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but you keep on blaming "immigrants", while I'd like to point out that even British citizen did not agree with the memorial on Harris and the statue was repeatedly vandalised. http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v08n3p15.htm

Stop derailing the whole thing to further blabber (more than what it is anyway) and answer my question: do you really think that Sir Arthur Harris deserves a statue for his achievements in WW2 as leader of Bomber Command?

You can try to 'rain' all you like, we Brits usually learn to carry brollies at an early age.

No I don't 'keep on blaming immigrants', in this one instance I've ever mentioned immigrants I'm referring to your own example.

Yes, I do consider Sir Arthur Harris to be deserving of a statue, as did and do the men formerly under his command.

And considering you weren't even aware of this statue's existence until you were told by PeterPanPan in this thread, your sudden wealth of knowledge regarding it's history and the controversy surrounding it is patently lacking in depth at best.

[bongodriver]

..you should seriously consider changing your nickname to "word-twister". The whole point is that you can ONLY see this topic with a self-righteous point of view, and as soon as somebody makes a valid point and questions how Area Bombing was against the Geneva convention and morally awful (other than useless), you cry "but they did it too!!!". SO?! We all know what the Nazis did, we're not questioning that, we're wondering why the crimes that YOU committed are more tolerable than the ones of the enemy, so much that you feel entitled to erect a statue as memory of it. Don't you REALLY see the twisted logic in this?!


Youre doing some pretty good 'self righteous' yourself, you just arent taking anybody elses views on board.
I don't cry anything, nor did 'I' commit any war crimes, I don't 'twist' any words, I relay what I have processed your words to mean.

We all know what the Nazis did, we're not questioning that

I have noticed....

History IS written by the winners, if you don't even accept that then there's no point in carrying on with this conversation. And the bravery of the crews is not represented by a statue of Harris! It wasn't Harris that sat in those bombers at night, he was comfortably sitting in his office giving orders.

it does not necessarily mean that that history is all lies....like you seem to imply.
Harris did his time in service in the first war, he was a fighter ace, I don't begrudge an old vet the time spent behind the desk giving orders, yes I know Hitler was a vet too, but Hitler had a penchant for murdering Jews and starting wars, I don't think Harris would have had the opportunity to do what he did without Hitlers contribution, so Harris is only partially responsible for what happened.

naaaah, get your facts right man. It's the Arthur Harris Trust that did it, and they got support from the vets because they cunningly presented it as the sole Bomber Command memorial. I completely agree about the new monument for Bomber Command for instance, but not the Harris one, capisc'?!

if you say so.

As for what the vets think: I'm sure you know that there are SS vets that still think they were doing the right thing, so what shall we make of that?

irrelevant......

[bongodriver]

Stern.....a little insight as to why I might get miffed by your statements.


episode 1) The Battle of Britain thread, it set the benchmark for all of your subsequent anti British contributions, because it was the first one I saw myself, the may have been many more previously.

Your points:

1. Not really a battle
2. Not really a victory for Britain (wording you used: not a defeat for LW) either way it was underplaying any achievement by the British.
3. not really very signifficant event in WWII
4. some other generic pap some others spout about how the LW were so terribly disadvantaged it was easy for the Brits anyway.
5. the Americans really won it for us because they SOLD us food and fuel and ammo.
6.History is written by the winners so everything we know about it is a lie but only you know the real truth.
7. you somehow needed to bring Op Market garden into the question to highlight general British incompetency.
8. Britain is nothing but a bunch of colonialist and nationalist pigs with a sense of self righteousness which is why we keep resisting your version of the truth.

episode 2) North Africa, I forget which thread it was involved in.

your points:

1. Not really a battle because it was easy for the Brits with a numerical advantage (see points 1,2,3,4 above and merge them)
2. The Americans won it for us by SELLING us food, ammo and eventually getting involved.
3. somehow Op Market garden was brought up again to highlight British incompetency and in particular Montgommery's.
4. History is written by the winners so everything everyone else know is just a lie but only you know the real truth.
5. Britain is just a bunch of colonialist and Nationalist pigs with a sense of self righteousness which is why we keep resisting your version of the truth.

episode 3) this thread, an innocent link to a bbc programme about bomber command which you even agreed was objective and unbiassed, yet somehow you managed to drag us down another one of these roads because you couldn't help trying to remind everyone the British are just war criminals.

your points:

1. Britain are war criminals.
2. We built a statue to prove it.
3. History is written by the winners so everything we know about it is a lie but only you know the real truth.
4. Britain is just a bunch of colonialist and Nationalist pigs with a sense of self righteousness which is why we keep resisting your version of the truth.
5. Britain should hand over the Falklands?

what it shows me:

you don't really think very highly of us......but that's ok because you said you like the UK and you live here.


can you see 'MY' point now? so forgive me if I get a little sensitive, it's just you seem ever prepared to take anything dear to the Brits and rip it to shreds at any given opportunity.
you can tell me I've exaggerated it and twisted your words all you like but everything I mentioned 'is' something you said and I am just telling you what it sounds like to me.

[robtek]

Stern.....a little insight as to why I might get miffed by your statements.


episode 1) The Battle of Britain thread, it set the benchmark for all of your subsequent anti British contributions, because it was the first one I saw myself, the may have been many more previously.

Your points:

1. Not really a battle
2. Not really a victory for Britain (wording you used: not a defeat for LW) either way it was underplaying any achievement by the British.
3. not really very signifficant event in WWII
4. some other generic pap some others spout about how the LW were so terribly disadvantaged it was easy for the Brits anyway.
5. the Americans really won it for us because they SOLD us food and fuel and ammo.
6.History is written by the winners so everything we know about it is a lie but only you know the real truth.
7. you somehow needed to bring Op Market garden into the question to highlight general British incompetency.
8. Britain is nothing but a bunch of colonialist and nationalist pigs with a sense of self righteousness which is why we keep resisting your version of the truth.

episode 2) North Africa, I forget which thread it was involved in.

your points:

1. Not really a battle because it was easy for the Brits with a numerical advantage (see points 1,2,3,4 above and merge them)
2. The Americans won it for us by SELLING us food, ammo and eventually getting involved.
3. somehow Op Market garden was brought up again to highlight British incompetency and in particular Montgommery's.
4. History is written by the winners so everything everyone else know is just a lie but only you know the real truth.
5. Britain is just a bunch of colonialist and Nationalist pigs with a sense of self righteousness which is why we keep resisting your version of the truth.

episode 3) this thread, an innocent link to a bbc programme about bomber command which you even agreed was objective and unbiassed, yet somehow you managed to drag us down another one of these roads because you couldn't help trying to remind everyone the British are just war criminals.

your points:

1. Britain are war criminals.
2. We built a statue to prove it.
3. History is written by the winners so everything we know about it is a lie but only you know the real truth.
4. Britain is just a bunch of colonialist and Nationalist pigs with a sense of self righteousness which is why we keep resisting your version of the truth.
5. Britain should hand over the Falklands?

what it shows me:

you don't really think very highly of us......but that's ok because you said you like the UK and you live here.


can you see 'MY' point now? so forgive me if I get a little sensitive, it's just you seem ever prepared to take anything dear to the Brits and rip it to shreds at any given opportunity.
you can tell me I've exaggerated it and twisted your words all you like but everything I mentioned 'is' something you said and I am just telling you what it sounds like to me.

You are really a word twister!

But i really believe your conception of the written information is garbled somehow.

For example: NEVER in this thread was written that "Britain are war criminals" except by you.

If you really say, that there weren't any war crimes by done by british citizen, you've already made everything written by you here worthless.

But the rest of your interpretation isn't any better and only proves Sternjaeger (whose posts i usually detest :D) right.

Imo, of course.

[bongodriver]

You are really a word twister!

But i really believe your conception of the written information is garbled somehow.

For example: NEVER in this thread was written that "Britain are war criminals" except by you..

..you should seriously consider changing your nickname to "word-twister". The whole point is that you can ONLY see this topic with a self-righteous point of view, and as soon as somebody makes a valid point and questions how Area Bombing was against the Geneva convention and morally awful (other than useless), you cry "but they did it too!!!". SO?! We all know what the Nazis did, we're not questioning that, we're wondering why the crimes that YOU committed are more tolerable than the ones of the enemy, so much that you feel entitled to erect a statue as memory of it. Don't you REALLY see the twisted logic in this?! ..


If you really say, that there weren't any war crimes by done by british citizen, you've already made everything written by you here worthless..

can you remind me where I said that?

But the rest of your interpretation isn't any better and only proves Sternjaeger (whose posts i usually detest :D) right.

Imo, of course.

Thank you for it.......

[robtek]

[QUOTE=Sternjaeger II;393362]..you should seriously consider changing your nickname to "word-twister". The whole point is that you can ONLY see this topic with a self-righteous point of view, and as soon as somebody makes a valid point and questions how Area Bombing was against the Geneva convention and morally awful (other than useless), you cry "but they did it too!!!". SO?! We all know what the Nazis did, we're not questioning that, we're wondering why the crimes that YOU committed are more tolerable than the ones of the enemy, so much that you feel entitled to erect a statue as memory of it. Don't you REALLY see the twisted logic in this?!




can you remind me where I said that?



Thank you for it.......

Well, you objected to the allegedly expressed opinion from Sternjaeger "Britain are war criminals", which could be interpreted as "British citizens weren't war criminals", which is in this form wrong.

Further you interpreted Sternjaegers sentence': we're wondering why the crimes that YOU committed are more tolerable than the ones of the enemy as a slight to all britains, which is not correct as that a nation was adressed, not people.

But you decided to refer it to the people, which is wrong in this context.

I'll leave it at that, cause im on the way to become, intoxicated and therefore inable to write meaningful sentences :D

[bongodriver]

[QUOTE=bongodriver;393432]

Well, you objected to the allegedly expressed opinion from Sternjaeger "Britain are war criminals", which could be interpreted as "British citizens weren't war criminals", which is in this form wrong.

Further you interpreted Sternjaegers sentence': we're wondering why the crimes that YOU committed are more tolerable than the ones of the enemy as a slight to all britains, which is not correct as that a nation was adressed, not people.

But you decided to refer it to the people, which is wrong in this context.

I'll leave it at that, cause im on the way to become, intoxicated and therefore inable to write meaningful sentences :D

No what I'm really objecting to is Sterns constant belittleing of the British at every given opportunity, if you bothered to process what I wrote you might undestand that.

the issue over Harris is just a small part of Sterns overall disdain for the British but he brandishes it like a trump card.

Prost!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Apart for my personal judgement on Churchill's role in the whole affair (which again is not pretty clear, since the pressure for the "go" on the area bombing was coming from different fronts, he never was particularly fond of it, as it emerged in several private letters that came out), I normally think that one should avoid erecting statues of political leaders (let alone military ones!), especially if they were involved in controversial decisions.

Hmmm, 'Churchill's role in the whole affair which again is not pretty clear'.

He was the leader of The United Kingdom and The British Empire, and Head of the War Cabinet.

It was Churchill together with Charles Portal who overturned Chamberlain's instruction to avoid carrying out raids where civilian lives may be put at risk. It was Portal who originally recommended the deliberate targeting of cities.

It was Churchill who asked rhetorically in 1943 'Are we beasts?' but continued to endorse the area bombing policy and the overall Strategic Bombing campaign.

Harris was not some sort of piratical maverick doing everything behind his Prime Minister's back, or behind the backs of the War Cabinet, The Air Ministry, or behind the back of the Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe or his deputy. I say yet again, Harris did nothing which was not sanctioned and approved by Churchill and the War Cabinet.

Churchill was leader of the British nation, the British People and all of it's armed forces. Is it clear yet?

[Sternjaeger II]

sorry lads, been down to the pub, and despite the 4 pints of Black Sheep I would like to say something..

@ Bongo: I'm sorry man, but I don't think I can keep on talking about this with you any longer. I keep on talking facts, you deliberately derail the conversation just because you think I'm an UK hater, whereas I'm just a fan of reality check.

I think Dutch's last post really embodies the spirit of some Britons that I was referring to "Yeah bombing civilians is a war crime and it's against the Geneva convention.. if they do it", which is a very dangerous one. The fact that he's ready to vouch for the perpetrator of a war crime doesn't make him any better than the Nazis, but as long as one feels that he's entitled to break the rules "because we're doing it for a good cause", then we won't have much of a progress (and Dutch, no I didn't know about Harris' statue, but I also know that common sense and good taste are often given for granted).

You said you don't care about the Harris' statue, well you should my friend, because it conveys the wrong message, which received harsh critiques from the mayors of the cities that were at the receiving end of Harris' policy.

Harris knew it wasn't effective (it didn't work against England after all), they knew it would have cost them a lot of lives and aircraft, they knew it would have caused a lot of disruption after the war, but they did it nonetheless, and the only explanations are retaliation, propaganda and politics (because the Russians pressed hard for it).
And just like in England, thousands of innocent children and women died, for no reason other than propaganda and a policy that was twice as wrong because it deliberately didn't want to learn from its own lesson.

If you're cool with all that, then yes, feel free to celebrate Butcher Harris.

[Sternjaeger II]

Hmmm, 'Churchill's role in the whole affair which again is not pretty clear'.

He was the leader of The United Kingdom and The British Empire, and Head of the War Cabinet.

It was Churchill together with Charles Portal who overturned Chamberlain's instruction to avoid carrying out raids where civilian lives may be put at risk. It was Portal who originally recommended the deliberate targeting of cities.

It was Churchill who asked rhetorically in 1943 'Are we beasts?' but continued to endorse the area bombing policy and the overall Strategic Bombing campaign.

Harris was not some sort of piratical maverick doing everything behind his Prime Minister's back, or behind the backs of the War Cabinet, The Air Ministry, or behind the back of the Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe or his deputy. I say yet again, Harris did nothing which was not sanctioned and approved by Churchill and the War Cabinet.

Churchill was leader of the British nation, the British People and all of it's armed forces. Is it clear yet?

yeah, I know all of that, all I was saying is that it wasn't that straightforward and that when you receive so much pressure from so many different angles, you might take the wrong decision.
Truth is that Churchill did also take a lot of right decisions, whilst Harris didn't .

[Sternjaeger II]

No what I'm really objecting to is Sterns constant belittleing of the British at every given opportunity, if you bothered to process what I wrote you might undestand that.

the issue over Harris is just a small part of Sterns overall disdain for the British but he brandishes it like a trump card.

Prost!

that's your huge chip on the shoulder mate, not mine. I just find it surprising that some of you are so naive to think that your own country only dispersed daisies during its glorious history, and what's funny is that some get all wound up only when it's a foreigner who makes such remarks. The idea one gets is that despite your age you don't seem to be mature enough to take a critique constructively, you have to take everything down to a personal attack, deforming and blowing things out of proportion to then counterattack with further nonsense, and believe me, most of us sit on the side and look at you relentlessly charging at windmills..

And Robtek, thanks for your posts, even if you normally detest my posts ;)

[bongodriver]

Classic.....the old wind people up to boiling point and then arrogantly declare how how right you must be because they have the chip on their shoulder.

[bongodriver]

yeah, I know all of that, all I was saying is that it wasn't that straightforward and that when you receive so much pressure from so many different angles, you might take the wrong decision.
Truth is that Churchill did also take a lot of right decisions, whilst Harris didn't .


Make up your mind, was Harris the spawn of Satan who conciously murdered civilians, or was he just pressured into making a bad decision?

It's funny to watch how you deal with facts when they get presented to you.

[Sternjaeger II]

Jeez,I was referring to Churchill there,not Harris.. Look, just leave it..

[bongodriver]

Jeez,I was referring to Churchill there,not Harris.. Look, just leave it..

Oh Churchill.....so not Harris then........it's all so much clearer now, Churchill was pressured into making the bad decision to approve Harris to conduct area bombing.....

[arthursmedley]

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh112/arthursmedley/someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet11.jpg

I love you Dkoor.8-)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Harris' policy.

You really are just far too wilfully dense to grasp the fact that it wasn't.

'The Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government's Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants.'

The 'Wartime British Government' was headed by Churchill. Do you get that bit yet?

Here's the link to your own favourite source (apart from the odd bonus dvd you have lying around).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Bombing_Directive

[Kongo-Otto]

I dont understand the whole discussion in this Thread.

Just a few thoughts by me:
1. If there are people who want to have a statue of Air Chief Marshal Harris, then why not.
Major point for a Harris memorial imho is the rememberence of the Men of Bomber Command, most of them ripped out of their daily lives and put into a bomber fighting a war they didnt had any responsibility for. Its a memorial for those who never came back and for those who survived. Also a point for a Harris Memorial is: make sure that such things never happen again, make sure that no one raises such power again to ignite the world regardless from where he is!
So if you ask me, build a Memorial for Harris and build a big one!
Thats it, as simple as that.

2. To my German Friend in this Thread.
There is a German saying "Wer austeilt muss auch einstecken können" which means "If you dish it out you have to be able to take it"

Nowadays many say "it was the Nazis who started the war" yes thats true, but the Germans fought it out. Sure there have been many in Germany who resisted the Nazis some of them did that at all cost. But there were not many enough. But all the others which said nothing and just stood by, have the same responsibility as the Nazis have for all the things that came!
If some Germans today are blaming Bomber Command for Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg they are surely blaming the wrong ones!
Again its as simple as that!

[Bewolf]

I dont understand the whole discussion in this Thread.
There is a German saying "Wer austeilt muss auch einstecken können" which means "If you dish it out you have to be able to take it"

Oh I so agree to this one, I even dare say it comes down to this when it is about morale finger pointing.
And no, it is not that simple, because if you go the collective guilt route then you are opening a whole can of worms, not just in regards to Germany.

[Sternjaeger II]

You really are just far too wilfully dense to grasp the fact that it wasn't.

'The Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government's Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants.'

The 'Wartime British Government' was headed by Churchill. Do you get that bit yet?

Here's the link to your own favourite source (apart from the odd bonus dvd you have lying around).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Bombing_Directive

are we getting to the school playground levels again? :rolleyes:

Harris was a strong defender and the advocate of the area bombing, and whilst the British War Cabinet had doubts about its application (if anything for the doubts on the efficiency), he is the key figure that made it possible, and he admitted it. His nickname "butcher", which was given by his beloved airmen, wasn't just a random one.

So yes, you vouch for a man who deliberately ordered his aircrews to commit a war crime, a crime that according to your self-righteous double standards was acceptable either because they started it or because if we do it it's ok..well done there..

As for my "favourite source", it's just for the sake of practicality.. can I invite you to pay a visit to the National Archives website and look for War Cabinet discussions on area bombing? You'll see how controversial the thing was..

[bongodriver]

Oh boy Stern.....your poo just don't stink does it.....

[Sternjaeger II]

Oh boy Stern.....your poo just don't stink does it.....

...while yours doesn't stick buddy...

it's this kind of stubborn denial that further confirms my point: you just can't admit that just like any other country on this planet, you committed war crimes, and as that was not enough, you feel good enough about it to celebrate them as well..

[bongodriver]

I don't have time for this.....I'm late for the 'Harris day parade'.......now where did I put my union jack flat cap?

[Sternjaeger II]

I don't have time for this.....I'm late for the 'Harris day parade'.......now where did I put my union jack flat cap?

yeah well close the door behind you when you're finished patting yourself on the shoulder, I'm outta here..

[bongodriver]

Stern is clearly the most balanced one here....he has a chip on both shoulders.

[JG52Uther]

Well this thread seems to have degenerated in the usual fashion so...