Bomber boys - bbc one

[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.

[bongodriver]

It's like the whole Falklands thing, I mean, really? It's 2012, let go of the ba$tard 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.

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?

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

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.

Apart from you taking out only a single argument instead of answering to the whole, yes, you are exporting them.

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

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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?

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.

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.

isolated element? War banter is common to every layer of British society mate, from working class low income football fans to Prince Harry..

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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..

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.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

isolated element? War banter is common to every layer of British society mate, from working class low income football fans to Prince Harry..

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'

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Ok you explain that to the people that live there (they really do matter)

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..

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.

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?

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'

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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..

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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?