Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   Pilot's Lounge (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=205)
-   -   I Refuse To Fly WW2 CoD German Aircraft. Why? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33059)

RCAF_FB_Orville 07-11-2012 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthursmedley (Post 443407)
Whatever Orville:rolleyes: He's right though. You do come across as a tw@t when you post this kinda stuff.

Whatever, arthur. I am glad that my home land was defended by LIONS Circa 1939-45.

It would be great to hear the opinions of all the bleeding Heart WEAKLINGS on this forum when Nazism became reality, and their savage dream was fulfilled.

Oh........wait. You would not be allowed an opinion. Think about it.

Aye.

ATAG_Dutch 07-11-2012 12:10 AM

I dunno Arthur, I find Orville's posts a refreshing change from those of people who think national pride is some sort of crime.

Of course it doesn't help when dubious political parties are allowed to use the national flag as some sort of party political marketing tool, but this year in particular is as good a time as any to reinject some pride in our nation that the war years brought out in people to such good effect, and which has been sorely lacking for a good number of years.

As for computer games, yes it's daft from one perspective, but you won't see me flying anything but RAF planes in Cliffs of Dover. ;)

pencon 07-11-2012 12:10 AM

Well orville , what do you think the victims of British expansionism thought of the way they were slaughtered way back in the day . Or Blacks in the US way back when ? My point , most countries were guilty of some sort of atrocity back in history .What the Germans did under hitler was gruesome and atrocious .One more thing , the Russians were even worse .If you buy BoM will you refuse to fly Russian fighters ?

swiss 07-11-2012 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 443402)
....If they had the means to Annihilate each and every British person on the planet? How long do you think that he would have debated the "morality" of such an action?

A lot actually.
The Brits the Americans [and even the French-Canadians;)] were considered Westerners, Arian - it would have been pointless to get rid of them them, unless they were Jewish of course.

The funny thing is, your definition of devil not only includes Hitler&co, but every German citizen as well.
Makes you sound pretty smart and superior compared to those guys.
Different flavor, same contents.

Quote:

You would not be allowed an opinion. Think about it.
For a time, maybe.
On the other hand, Europeans have showed a talent in the past to get rid of unwanted Kings and governments. :cool:
I'm not sure what makes you think the historical outcome turned the planet into a better place - we simply don't know.

winny 07-11-2012 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiss (Post 443471)
A lot actually.
The Brits the Americans [and even the French-Canadians;)] were considered Westerners, Arian - it would have been pointless to get rid of them them, unless they were Jewish of course....


I'm not sure what makes you think the historical outcome turned the planet into a better place - we simply don't know.


Seriously? Are you saying that the fall of the 3rd Reich didn't have a positive effect? We do know that the 'historical outcome' had an immediate positive effect. The war ended, or is that a bad thing? It certainly turned the world into a better place in 1945.

You might think getting rid of the British and Americans was 'pointless', Hitler didn't. He intended to remove most of the male population in the UK.

On the wider point it seems that it's easy to criticise the UK for air raids.

Sadly that's what it took to get Germany to finally surrender, to blame the British for fighting back in the exact same way as they were attacked seems unfair.

In 1939 the German army was firing 30,000 shells a day into Warsaw. What's the difference between that and dropping bombs on a city? They also continuously attacked the city from the air. That set the tone for WW2.


In the grand scheme of things the German civilians got off a lot lighter than allied civilians. Hitler had no regard for his own people, the only way the air offensive could have been stopped was for Germany to surrender. It had become a machine designed to destroy Germany, nobody on the allied side was ever going to stop the air raids, they had the planes, they had the bombs... What else were they going to do? Sadly for the German people Hitler thought more about his ego than he did his people.

Don't think for a second that if Germany had the Bomber force that the allies had that they wouldn't have done the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, there was no glory in Dresden or Hamburg, but that was where the world was at. To judge it using today's standards, the whole bloody thing was wrong.

It was then though, not now. That's what it took, that's what happened. I hate to say 'they started it' because it sounds childish, but there's a fundamental truth to it to. For a nation to attack so many countries and for it to then try to make people feel guilty about attacking it back dosn't wash with me.

None of the sides involved showed much regard for civilian deaths, yet it's used as a stick to beat the British with, time and time again. Everybody was doing it.

If you don't want dead civilians then don't start wars, because in the age of high explosives it's always the civilians who die.

ATAG_Dutch 07-11-2012 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 443484)
Sadly that's what it took to get Germany to finally surrender, to blame the British for fighting back in the exact same way as they were attacked seems unfair.

Great post Winny, but before someone jumps on the above statement I'd like to add two points -

1) The bombing campaign itself was conducted by both Britain and America, but people continue to believe the American propaganda of 'precision bombing', which was there only to placate the Germanic and Italian American voters at home and is still widely espoused today.

2) The bombing campaign didn't bring about a surrender, but had the finances and resources earmarked for the invasion of Europe been handed over to the American bomber forces and Bomber Command, this would've been the case, as Speer himself stated in the past.

Unfortunately, what Arthur Harris failed to realise (having read his book) was that the invasion of Fortress Europe was entirely necessary in order to put Western Allied troops on the ground in Europe. Otherwise there was a potential for Stalin to march right on to the channel coast and down through Italy himself. Harris was commited to forcing Germany to surrender by using the Bomber force, and may have managed this given the resources, but seems not to have seen the potential further consequences of this. All he was concerned with was saving the lives of the Allied soldiers sent to invade by rendering an invasion unnecessary. Hence the 'bones of a British Grenadier' statement.

Alternatively, Harris may have been fully aware of this but foresaw a potential return to the horrors of 'Trench warfare' of 14-18, whether initially against Germany, but also subsequently against Russia. Maybe he was afraid of the cold war warming up a few degrees, and the existence of an unstoppable Bomber force would be enough to dissuade Stalin from further terratorial gains.

But again, if my Auntie had........;)

Kurfürst 07-11-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 443484)
Sadly that's what it took to get Germany to finally surrender, to blame the British for fighting back in the exact same way as they were attacked seems unfair.

Uhm, it was Britain who did declare war on Germany, refused German peace offers during the war (several times in fact), and it was Britain who started bombing German cities.

To put it like the poor British were 'forced' to fight back against an agression is pure BS.

They had a choice in the matter. It was the Brits who choose war, and it was the Brits to choose to wage that war by targetting the enemy cities and civillian population itself.

Don't blame it anyone else. Britain was not 'attacked' and Britain was not fighting 'back'. Britain wanted to fight and it wanted to fight in this rather dirty way. At least be a man about it.

Quote:

In 1939 the German army was firing 30,000 shells a day into Warsaw. What's the difference between that and dropping bombs on a city? They also continuously attacked the city from the air. That set the tone for WW2.
It set nothing - an army besieged a city and took it. There's hardly anything special about it. Bombarment of a besieged city is permitted under the rules of war, within some reasonable limits - some sort of military advantage from the bombardment, some sort of restraint from pointless destruction IS required, however.

It set the tone for war propaganda perhaps, but certainly not for the conduct military operations. The French and British militaries were well aware of that fact, but of course their propaganda sold a different picture to their public.

Quote:

Don't think for a second that if Germany had the Bomber force that the allies had that they wouldn't have done the same thing.
Uhm, they didn't. They had quite a serious bomber force and in fact dropped more bombs until about the end of 1943 than the RAF and USAF combined.

The difference was not capacity, but doctrine. Germany did not have 'bomber barons'. They didn't believe in terror bombings unlike Harris, save a small minority in the LW (the most vocal being v. Richthofen). Most of the German leaders, including Hitler and Goering, Speer etc. thought terror bombing is ineffective and wasteful and the bombers are to be used for better effect against the industries and operational bombing (communication and transportation). Moral reasoning hardly played a role, they simply did not believe it was worth it.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, there was no glory in Dresden or Hamburg, but that was where the world was at. To judge it using today's standards, the whole bloody thing was wrong.
I agree that its wrong to apply today's rather soft standards to the 1930s/40s. Racism and racist remarks for example for pretty much general, and openly communicated by even top politicians. Unthinkable today. But mass murder was mass murder even back then, as it was even in the middle ages. That does not mean people didn't get away with it, but they were not trumpheting about it either.

ATAG_Dutch 07-11-2012 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 443509)
It was the Brits who choose war, and it was the Brits to choose to wage that war by targetting the enemy cities and civillian population itself.

November 1940.

Notable Luftwaffe Operation - Devastation of Coventry.

Notable Bomber Command Operations - Krupps factory at Essen.

JG52Krupi 07-11-2012 11:50 AM

I am afraid to say it was we the Brits that led to the mass bombing of civilians, the first case of the Luftwaffe doing it was actually a mistake which they apologised for but the allies used it as an excuse to bomb Berlin which in turn led to the Luftwaffe targeting towns!

P.S. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Johnson, Samuel

JG52Krupi 07-11-2012 12:01 PM

Some of you may need to read this....

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/013_jam.html


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.