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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.


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

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.

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' !

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..

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)?

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.

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.

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'

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.

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~

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.

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.

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.

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 ... ;)

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..
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?

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.

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?

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.

There you go confusing Germans with Nazis again

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

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. :)

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.

:confused:

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

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.

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.

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

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


:confused:

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

Concerning the earlier reference to the Falklands situation,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/fe...tion-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

:lol:

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

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 ;)

what's so funny about it? :confused:

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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!”

..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:

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).



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

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.

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.

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?

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.

My bold.

Yes.

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...

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.

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 :(

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


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.

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.

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

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?

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.

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:

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.

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

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?'

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.


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.

..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 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?!

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

I have noticed....

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.

if you say so.

irrelevant......

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.

can you remind me where I said that?

Thank you for it.......

[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

[QUOTE=robtek;393444]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!

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?

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.

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 .

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.....

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...internet11.jpg

I love you Dkoor.8-)

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

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!

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.

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..

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..

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..

Stern is clearly the most balanced one here....he has a chip on both shoulders.