Bomber boys - bbc one

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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 commemorating 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.

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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.

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?

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.

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

The darkest chapter of the RAF surely doesn't deserve a statue of his mastermind.

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

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.

[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?'

[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?

[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.

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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?

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 .