Bomber boys - bbc one

[WTE_Galway]

Do remember a little history in these discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

What is 'Victor's Justice'?

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

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

Area Bombing?

What is Area Bombing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Hi all,

What is 'Victor's Justice'?

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

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

Area Bombing?

What is Area Bombing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

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

Seriously, read the whole thread before posting such nonsense.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

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

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

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

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Do remember a little history in these discussions.

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

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.

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

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

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

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

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bongodriver]

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

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

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

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

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

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

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