Bomber boys - bbc one

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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
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]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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
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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ) right.

Imo, of course.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

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..

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..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?! ..

Originally Posted by robtek

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?

Originally Posted by robtek

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

Imo, of course.

Thank you for it.......