As suggested... "Heroes" are nice things to have, but actually some stuff is disturbing me. a) anybody can choose "his" convenient hero. So the "bomber zealot" choose the bomber crew, the German or Japanese surviving the bomber nights chooses the nightfighter, etc, hell, and a 100% nazi will choose the SS because those "heroes" were doing the "tough job" of exterminating the Jews! "Heroes" are subject to personal taste and are fully replaceable. Just dump 'em away if they don't fit anymore to your worldview. b) in wartime, those 20-year old boys who ain't want to die and manage to kill as many other 20-year old boys as possible (who don't want to die, too) are considered to be the "heros". So the sniper killing 200+ "enemies" is certainly a hero, but the 19-year old draftee with his brain splattered all over the ground ain't. Actually, I don't believe in this logic. The killer is the hero and the victim the tool to his fame? Ce la guerre, so far, so bad. But - for me- things get even worse if a 20-year ols ARMED soldier is suddenly becoming a hero because he killed UNARMED civilians, may they be lined up against a wall or locked up in a cellar hole. "Total War allows everything" is just a cheap excuse for mass murder. You can easily explain the Nazi Holocaust with the logic of "Total War". c) War needs heroes. Heroes are the perfect tool to show stupid people that it's honerable to kill as many other people as you can because others are telling you so and that it's not a simple crime (maybe somehow "solved" by the own, lousy, dirty, painful and completely unnecessary croaking), but some heroic act. (good advise: Stop killing others once the guys told you that "war is over" and killing suddenly becomes a crime again. Suddenly you will not get a medal, but a place in a cell for the rest of your life! Also, during war, restrain from killing those people you might really hate (tax auditors, the guy who always pees against your fence etc.), if they happen to share the same nationality! But it's perfectely OK to kill your best friend if he has the "wrong" nationality, though!) d) everybody has to draw his own line. To some it's absolutely OK to kill the soldier shooting at you, to others it's still OK to brown the population of entire cities as long as it's during war, to others it's still OK to fly planes into skycrapers. e) I'm not sure that the argument that those side who started a war just "reaps what he sows", works. First, on an individial basis, this is as irrelevant as it depends on your own POV and level of indoctrination. Guess the average landser really believed that Germany was "under attack" and the average American might really be sure that he is deadly threatened by Saddam. "Tit for Tat" is in fact really the name of the game, but that doesn't mean that the "tit" is not a crime as it was just made for a "tat". Actually, there's always a "tat" before the "tit". f) as for heroes, I think everybody knows the famous Vietnam picture of the "Napalm Girl". I'm 100% sure the pilot who dropped the Napalm on the village was either told to do so or was let in the believe that he's striking a military target. Maybe he's just a 25-year old "fighter ace" trying to give his best. However, If I have to choose a "hero" i'll take the small burning girl rather than the fighter pilot. In War you'll find many many victims, many criminals and only very, very few heroes. Just my humple opinion and piece of shithouse philosophy. Cheers, [ 14. January 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]
As suggested... "Heroes" are nice things to have, but actually some stuff is disturbing me. a) anybody can choose "his" convenient hero. So the "bomber zealot" choose the bomber crew, the German or Japanese surviving the bomber nights chooses the nightfighter, etc, hell, and a 100% nazi will choose the SS because those "heroes" were doing the "tough job" of exterminating the Jews! "Heroes" are subject to personal taste and are fully replaceable. Just dump 'em away if they don't fit anymore to your worldview. ...Cant argue with the above, so far so good...urqh b) in wartime, those 20-year old boys who ain't want to die and manage to kill as many other 20-year old boys as possible (who don't want to die, too) are considered to be the "heros". So the sniper killing 200+ "enemies" is certainly a hero, but the 19-year old draftee with his brain splattered all over the ground ain't. Actually, I don't believe in this logic. The killer is the hero and the victim the tool to his fame? ...Just killing in wartime, in battle conditions does not make anyone a hero, another point of agreement... The sniper can be a hero to an attached unit that he may be covering in withdrawal, to that unit he is helping to save their lives, he is not a hero becuase he has taken 200 lives. Although I see your point depends much on who is calling him the hero, the sniper himself may also not think he is a hero in addition...urqh Ce la guerre, so far, so bad. But - for me- things get even worse if a 20-year ols ARMED soldier is suddenly becoming a hero because he killed UNARMED civilians, may they be lined up against a wall or locked up in a cellar hole. "Total War allows everything" is just a cheap excuse for mass murder. You can easily explain the Nazi Holocaust with the logic of "Total War". If a 20 year ol armed soldier is killing unarmed civillians then in my book he is no hero, anyone who consideres him to be so is in a quaint old Brit term..off their trolley... Total war does not allow everything, who said that? I think you are taking my annology of total war in regards to the bomber war out of context and I dont actually like you doing so, total war in most peoples view is war fought with all possible means, in all cases total war is still subserviant to the articles of the Geneva convention. Your definition of total war is far removed from mine, civilians being put up against a wall, prisoners being shot out of hand is a crime. Bombers attacking the mechanisations of the industrial base of the enemy is none the less in my view an acceptable form of warfare. Most bomber crews on all sides will most probably regret, or feel some sorrow for what they were involved in, I have never spoken to any bomber crew and Im most certainly guessing at that one. Bombing populated areas in the belief that it will effect the morale of the population and may lead to a collapse of the civilian and thus military means to fight, is in my own view wrong, it does not work, London took it, Berlin took it. Bomber Harris is looked on by many to be a war crinimal the jury is still out on this. I for one disagree with bombing for that purpose it does no good. You cannot excuse the Nazi logic with the excuse of total war, all actions are answerable under the Geneva convention. Total war is a term used to bring together the full fighting ability of a nation, military, industrial, civilian and political to one end. Defeat of the enemy. It does not allow for the acceptance of war crimes or release anyone from normal humanely accepted actions...Urqh c) War needs heroes. Heroes are the perfect tool to show stupid people that it's honerable to kill as many other people as you can because others are telling you so and that it's not a simple crime (maybe somehow "solved" by the own, lousy, dirty, painful and completely unnecessary croaking), but some heroic act. ....That I can agree with...If you dont have war heros you dont get so many youngsters wanting to join up at the end of the day. Yes war heros can be used as a political and military tool, that does not take anything away from many so called war heros, just as many became heros saving life as taking life...Urqh (good advise: Stop killing others once the guys told you that "war is over" and killing suddenly becomes a crime again. Suddenly you will not get a medal, but a place in a cell for the rest of your life! Also, during war, restrain from killing those people who might really hate (tax auditors, the guy who always pees against your fence etc.), if they happen to share the same nationality! But it's perfectely OK to kill your best friend if he has the "wrong" nationality, though!) ...I dont know I dont think I would kill a freind no matter his nationality or if declared an enemy by my country, and I would hope the same of any friend towards me. Yes you are right, you cannot just switch off a killing machine it is not that simple. We have learned much over the years on what battle fatigue can do, and we are still seeing the suicides from many wars years after the event...Urqh d) everybody has to draw his own line. To some it's absolutely OK to kill the soldier shooting at you, to others it's still OK to brown the population of entire cities as long as it's during war, to others it's also OK to fly planes into skycrapers. ....Or you dont become a soldier, that might sound the simplistic attitude, but today most nations do not enforce conscription. In ww2 do you honestly think those guys 20,000 ft up on both sides imagined the faces looking upwards, they must have found someway of blotting out those faces and saw only a physical target, riightly or wrongly. I agree, and its proved on this board by the posts Ihave seen, I dont think I have seen anyone gloryfying in it, what I have seen is people relating factual evidence on people and equipment and their views being challenged as you do. War is wrong, what can I say, but it happens and happened, ww2 happened, we will carry on discussing it on here, any one who has been to war or seen any action is the first witness to call on for the defence your honour in the matter of shall we go to war is it worth it. However there will always be someone who wants to go to war, and for that reason there will always be soldiers sailors and airmen.....Urqh e) I'm not sure that the argument that those side who started a war just "reaps what he sows", works. First, on an individial basis, this is as irrelevant as it depends on your own POV and level of indoctrination. Guess the average landser really believed that Germany was "under attack" and the average American might really be sure that he is deadly threatened by Saddam. "Tit for Tat" is in fact really the name of the game, but that doesn't mean that the "tit" is not a crime as it was just made for a "tat". Actually, there's always a "tat" before the "tit". ...Again, reaps what he sows, who starts it etc, you are again taking out of context whay I implied. You are prime minister of Britain, London has been bombed, what do you do, given you are already at war, bombing Berlin certainly did not act as a deterrent to Hitler not to bomb any more British cities, but you would have Churchil do what? Make peace? Surrender? What options are available to him..you choose...Urqh Also W, SORRY MATE TOO MANY TITS THERE...Urqh... f) as for heroes, I think everybody knows the famous Vietnam picture of the "Napalm Girl". I'm 100% sure the pilot who dropped the Napalm on the village was either told to do so or was let in the believe that he's striking a military target. MAybe he's just a 25-year old "fighter ace" or something similar. However, If I have to choose a "hero" i'll take the small burning girl rather than the fight the fighter pilot. ....Again agreement, its not heroic to bomb, all bomber crews were not heros its wrong of anyone to state that...Did anyone? However the dams raid crews that pressed home their attack were in view heros. Sorry, but not for killing, for the whole mission, planning, bravery in carrying out the mission, skill and dedication to task under intense fire. Not for bean counting the dead and injured....Urqh War is crime, not herotic. ....War is crime, so ban war. Will it work? Whether we like it or not and we could argue for ever, there is war and where there is war men and women will do heroic acts, and not just to kill...Urqh Just my humple opinion and piece of shithouse philosophy. Cheers, </font>[/QUOTE]....Not shithouse opinion, hunane opinion in my view, but realistic? no war? I wish so too, however I dont thik so....Urqh...Cheers.
Well that looks like a jungle of writing...Sorry anyone who reads my previous response to W will find my text begins after...dots and ends with sig Urqh..apologies..
Andy, your points deserve a full answer. I will do so tomorrow when I can lock myself into a restricted computer area and pretend to everyone outside Im working.... But to start with, your quotes are interesting and I have no argument with them or the context you use them in...If you refer back to previous reply you will see I am not a supporter of ariel bombing should it be used against the populace to priamarily affect the morale of the populace. That is wrong and I wont keep repeating myself on that. I have already said that the Jury is still out on Bomber Harris, I have always been susecptible to the view in many German quarters and not just German I might add, that he should be considered a war crinimal, I can see why that can be said. My own mind is not made up on the matter yet. Total war and morals in war are subjective but I will give you my view on them tomorrow. As to the various conventions and what went before each one and why should we only consider one above an other..Then yes for the purpose of this forum it which is ww2, then the Geneva convention must be the convention we look at in more detail here not rules relating to any previous conventions..whether we like it or not, the Geneva convention surplants others before it. War crimes? Killing civilians? To kill civilians after the battle has been won or lost, is a crime. To kill prisoners or surrendering troops whilst stil in the heat of battle is wrong, but as you point out a soldier is a soldier in the heat of battle killing someone while surrendering while bullets still fly is different whether we like it or not than killiing prisoners taken after the battle or days after. I hope to explain my view on that better than it sounds in that quick sentence above later. One quick question to you, getting back to the thread that started this discussion....Do you honestly think that the dam raids, at conception and planning were thought of to kill as many civilians as possible? Do you not accept that the raid was aimed at destroying industrial technical and communication power base? Barnes Wallis didnt work on the project with the idea of killing countless civilians but rather harming the German industrial capacity. Do you disagree with this? Yes there is a difference a big one in my view. When based in Germany I did some time swapping police posts with the local German force, and although never speaking to bomber crews, have spoken to people who experienced bombing (my own mother went though the Blitz in Liverpool but thats neither here not there) German police guys told me of their families bombed in M.Gladbach..I wandered what targets there were there to be bombed, thinking factories etc.. Further investigations brought up the railway yards in Gladbach as being one of the main targets..However the accuracy by RAF was pretty damn poor and it was a built up city, Heavy casualties and building damage resulted. And was probably not worth it when looking at results. There is a difference in such a mission as those and the Dams raids. Looking at the British bomber command diaries, which I admit I hardly look at just gathers dust, the amount of damage and civilians killed in hitting targets would not be acceptable today. The quotes you use in your post point to the Bomber commands and politicians of the time not worrying about this, they wanted the bombing to continue at a greater pace and civilian casualties may have been encorouged. But there are 2 sides....Some of Speers quotes can be used to justify the allied bombing campaings. The choices on Churchill and the tit for tat argument...we may have a language problem between us, hopefully we can get to the bottom of that too.. But im wandering off, will come back to you tomorrow. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster, when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you. Regards
I'll throw in my usual two-penn'orth here about 'Harris the war-criminal'. ''The ultimate aim of the attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this we must achieve two things ; first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim is, therefore, twofold, namely ; to produce (i) destruction, and (ii) the fear of death''. Harris speaking ? No - Air Staff paper dated 23rd September, 1941 quoted in Harris, 'Despatch On War Operations'. I have no wish to be a Harris apologist here ; but he was ruthlessly carrying out policy decided at Air Ministry level and communicated by them to the War Cabinet of a democracy. It is too easy an option to point the finger at one individual - by doing so, difficult thoughts and questions can be side-stepped. WWII was a very rough game indeed.
Theres also the industrial product to get back to. Even if not destroying a munitions factory. How many aa guns were produced? how many troops were needed to man the defences? Id suggest a few of the old 88s could have been used by Rommel in Africa. How many did he have while they were being strung out round Germanys defencess? The production of fighters purely to be used in defence of the homeland when they were needed elswhere? Im stopping I have lots to say and bore every one with but no time now..
I believe that was the thing the bombings were based on. Unfortunately the British themselves saw during the Blitz how well the terror bombings worked...actually it worked against the bombers.And to think how many crews and planes the Germans lost..nothing learned here either.So actually the gains vs losses do not match, I think. If you think neutrally. If you think about revenge, that is another thing. Talking about the city bombing ( into ruins ) in WW2. Mostly as I read the German soldiers were anxious to get to the front after seeing what happened to the cities and families, because that was the place to get back at the allied boys. So it was not shortening the war, I think vice versa. As well the demand for unconditional surrender worked for Hitler. And I am sure the bomber planes and crews lost for the allied until 1944 ( as P-51 ´s could escort the planes all the way to Berlin ) the losses were unbearable as to the results. Even how much revenge is wanted I´d think first how to keep the losses minimal. Just some thoughts on the subject...
Please allow to take your argument the other way around... How many aircraft were produced? how many troops were needed to lift an air fleet? I'd suggest a few of the old aircraft and men could have been used by Monty in Africa or to protect the Atlantic. How many did they have while they were being sent again German cities? The production of aircraft purely to be used in the bombing of useless enemy civilians when they were needed elswhere to fight his very military means? Cheers,
Seems to be an odd time-shift here. El Alamein was over by November '42, the critical phase of the Battle of the Atlantic by mid -'43 just as the Bomber Offensive was really getting underway. Can't see that Wellingtons, Manchesters and Stirlings would have been much use in the desert, and as for manpower factory workers were mainly women, groundcrew were over-age for infantry service... ?
No Martin think Andy means rather than produce Lancs or whatever could have been producing other war materials? Anyway, I still have a lot to say, but got kids, and movies got in the way. Eeee Lad....not letting this rest by gum, got lots to say still, and thanks to Andy for raising it. Certainly has focused my view on one aspect of the war. On looking at the bomber command war diaries, I certainly agree with Andy on some matters, but so far only a halfway meeting...back soon....my turn to do tea..
remember you cannot judge just the RAF by itself. The US air forces need to be included as well. The prime air directive was to blow Germany's economy right off the world map/anything and everything was to be terminated !......an enlightening piece of work by Werner Girbig covering Berlin is "Im Anflug auf die Reichshauptstadt", die dokumentation der Bombenangriffe auf Berlin. E
Just as a side line to this topic... A few years back there was a documentary on the media's role in Vietnam. There had been persistent rumours about the "Napalm Girl" incident from the media viewpoint, in that it was said that, instead of rendering aid to this poor child immediately, the media had her run back towards the burning village and then run towards them again for the cameras. When questioned about this, the reporter concerned reluctantly agreed that that "may" have happened, but defended it as necessary to show the tragedy of the Vietnam war. There is no truth in war, and to me, a hero is a man or woman, who sacrifices their own safety or life, to save those of their fellow men, not someone who kills more men that anyone else. Sure, I believe that the sniper who kills 200+ enemy or the bomber pilot who endures fighters and flak every day and night to do his job, or the poor old infratryman who has to endure rain, and mud, and sudden death, every day, is a very brave man and deserves every accolade and medal he gets, but the true heroes, especially in WW2, were those unknown civilians who risked their own lives to save those of strangers. The people who hid Jews from the Nazi's, or those who helped Allied airmen escape. The one's who infiltrated German installations and factories to gather data and information, so that the bombers could do their job. Those unknown people who risked their lives to sabotage the German war effort. Those are the real heroes. No one ordered them to do it, they just did it because they felt it was the right thing to do. ________________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)
This is a very simplicistic and limited definition. It happens to single all those out who had the bad luck to do the same for the "other" side, whatever this is in your definition. I personally would never call someone who "gather data and information, so that the bombers could do their job" heros. What about those civilians who gathered information for the SS so that the Einsatzgruppen can do thier job? Heros, too? What about civilians helping SS men to escape to South America? Heros? Not to me. Nor those same individuals on the other side. Cheers,
