Bomber boys - bbc one

[csThor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sternjaeger II]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

Stones and glass houses etc.

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

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Stones and glass houses etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

likewise, I love Germany and their attention to details

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

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

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

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

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

[bongodriver]

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

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

Italy or Germany?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Italy or Germany?

Take your pick I guess, but I meant Germany.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by csThor

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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