RAF Bomber crews remembered. Better late than never.
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18501658

An emotional day for me and my family, and a great many others.

Overjoyed that their sacrifice is finally recognised.

Mixed with sadness my Grandad (A Lancaster pilot who completed 30+ missions) who lost many close friends didn't live to see it.

No bitterness though, it is way past time to forfeit such ill feeling.

The thing that pleases me most is that it also remembers those who lost their lives in the attacks. I know my Grandad would have approved wholeheartedly, and my tears will be in part for them. A modern and conscientious approach to remembrance. Maybe it is a good thing it waited until now, for that reason. Many, many thanks to all those who campaigned for it, and for the understandably begrudging acceptance from Germany, it means a lot to us all and hints at an evolutionary process in social/political thinking, are we beginning to learn from our past mistakes? I will forever live in hope. It can only bring our countries closer, and strengthen the bonds between us.

Lest we forget.

Now I am going to cry.

Saw it too, very emotional watching some of the old bomber guys remember their feelings, soon none of them (on any side) will be left from WW2.

Respect is due.

Cruel the way they were shunned by the governments of the time and thus many of the people too ... a total unglamorous job compared to the Fighter pilots of the time who were revered, well overdue recognition IMHO.

Things are a changing for sure, the queen shook hands with the IRA guy this week ... and while I dont do monarchy or terrorists, this might be the most useful thing she's ever done in her time, lets put bad times behind us and move on, the future is in science not in wars.

About effing time too

Yes, I think my Grandfather was somewhat pleased to see this finally happen, sadly he didn't go himself as he didn't think he could have coped with the long day.

Watched every bit of it twice over last night. The documentary 'Who betrayed the Bomber Boys?' was also a very refreshing and truthful perspective on the reasons why we still have to defend them and their leader to this day.

A superb evening's TV which even made the Mrs weep. Me I just blamed the beer going up my nose.....:(

But the memorial itself is perfect in my view. In keeping with the surroundings, classically styled but incorporating appropriate design features which signify the period, and the postures of the figures themselves are perfect.

They may have waited sixty-odd years, but that memorial looks pretty permanent to me, and deservedly so.

Thanks again Sammi.

Crikey!, but with all due respect, lets remember fallen men from both bomber sides ... from all sides, they were just pawns.

Bless them all.

Time to reflect.

I'm gutted I missed the documentary, was it really good then?

What do you think?

it was just a question to know more about it, was the sarcasm necessary? :confused:

Is it going to be repeated anytime soon? I missed it, the documentary that is.

Still available to watch on BBC iPlayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...omber_Command/

Stern you can watch it here mate:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...omber_Command/

EDIT: sry already posted above :)

Cheers mate, really looking fwd to it :)

Let's keep this civil guys.

I think these guys were neither 100% heroes nor 100% murderers, both terms get tossed around with too much ease nowadays. They were soldiers whose capabilities were used in a totally wrong and inefficient way by their commanders. Essentially, that is where the blame should go.

I once read a very interesting article on a quarterly aviation magazine (international air power review) about the Lancaster bomber. It concluded that post-war studies showed the bomber command campaign to be largely ineffective due to wrong priorities and assumptions.

It turned out that targeting civilians didn't really harm morale any more than it solidified their willpower to stand against what they perceived as a direct threat to their lives at any cost (the "rally around the flag" effect, if you are personally targeted you don't care that much about who runs your country but about surviving). It also resulted in loads of casualties (civilians and aircrews alike) for very small gains in terms of real operational factors. For example, German industrial production actually improved at some point during 43 or 44, in the midst of heavy bombings.

The article then described that bomber command's mistake was essentially using the right tools for the job, but a wrong job. Expensive 4-engined heavy bombers with crews of 7-10 men, who were vulnerable to flak and night fighters while lacking both the ability for precision night bombing and the defensive armament and durability for daylight raids (not to mention the lack of long range RAF escorts).

The final conclusion got me thinking, because it was a very obvious one but i hadn't really thought of it until that point. The RAF had a perfectly capable and highly versatile bomber that was precise (especially when using radio navigation equipment), fast, had long range and was much cheaper than the heavies, because it only had two engines and a crew of 2-3. The Mosquito which, along with the Ju88, probably ranks as the most versatile aircraft of WWII and one of the first truly multi-role designs.

If the industrial and human resources went towards building a fleet of Mosquitoes (it could carry as much as a B-17 by the way, so nothing to scoff at), the RAF would have probably twice or more the number of bombers than it actually had. Most of all, these bombers would be capable of accurately hitting industrial and military targets instead of leveling towns and killing civilians en masse, while at the same time if one went down the RAF was only 2 engines, some balsa wood and 2 men short, probably captured instead of dead thanks to it's docile handling.

In contrast, the Lancaster was designed with the sole aim of carrying as much as possible and was notorious for its abysmal crew survivability rates in the event of an emergency landing.

In the closing statement of the article, it was stated that the Lancaster was an indiscriminate bludgeon, while the Mosquito was a precision fencing sword.
It sure was one of the most interesting articles i've read in a while, i might go dig it up and reread it :grin:

Blackdog_kt, the only time the Mossie carried a bomb load the size of the B-17s was when it was carrying the 4000lb cookie. This was an inaccurate indiscriminate demolition bomb.

Even though Nazi German production of war material increased late in the war, one high up Nazi leader said the SBC reduced overall production by ~30%. The SBC also diverted resources that could have been better used on the front lines and increasing production even more.

Heavy bombing didn't begin until 1944.

1943 - 157,457 ton
1944 - 525,518 ton

As for BC losses - 8,655 (2.58%)

Very good post Blackdog with some very interesting points. I think this is a topic worth debating especially at a time when this memorial has been unveiled and I fail to see why this can't be done here with civility.
From my personal point of view, as a Briton, I think the two major blots on Great Britains conduct during WW2 were the strategic bombing campaign and the Bengal famine of '43/44.

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that all those fifty-five thousand young men, the cream of Britain and it's Commonwealth's youth were our blood sacrifice in a horrible total war during which to obtain victory over Nazi Germany the Russians died by their millions, the Americans paid by the $billion and Britain was a very handy unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of north-west Europe.

I see someone has brought up the figure of six-hundred thousand civilian casualties and has been condemned for it. Unfortunately this is an inescapable truth. When broken down, the remarkable thing about the casualty statistics for these raids were their consistency. Approximately twenty per cent would be women, twenty per cent would be children, twenty per cent would be pensioners, twenty per cent would be PoW's and slave labourers. The remaining twenty per cent would be made up of slightly varying proportions of industrial workers, soldiers, schoolboys manning anti-aircraft batteries, etc.

Certainly Germany was forced to allocate a great deal of industrial production of ammunition, heavy artillery, advanced optics, electronics and fighter aircraft to resist these attacks but the German wartime economy was on a rising scale throughout the war as it started from such a low base.

Even if you think the cost of these civilian casualties was a price worth paying in order to divert this production it must be worth considering the effect of bomber command on Britains own war economy. Did bomber command do more harm to Britain than to Germany? Did the strategic bombing campaign help shorten the war or prolong it? At it's height, during the winter of '44/45 when bomber command was at it's most destructive - and it's contribution strategically irrelevant - the strategic bomber offensive consumed around twenty per cent of Britains war economy including nearly a million of it's most skilled engineers, scientists and the flower of our youth.

On the ground in Europe our armies were equipped with a good but Edwardian vintage rifle and the Sherman tank. A fighting vehicle inferior in almost every way bar the sheer numbers we deployed to anything the Germans had. Our armies were chronically short of infantrymen and skilled junior officers and NCO's too. The Americans suffered just the same short comings in this respect and were very aware of it too.

How did we get to this position? For the answer to that we must try and cast off the advantages of hindsight and return to the summer and autumn of 1940 when Britain did stand truly alone against a victorious German army that had now conquered western and central Europe.

The logic of our position then would have been to make terms with Hitler but we fought on and the only potential weapon available to us whilst we waited upon events was the aeroplane. I still find it remarkable that the tactical and strategic lessons we learned from winning the battle of Britain in the summer were promptly ignored in the following spring. The short range, single engined interceptor fighter was at a huge disadvantage after crossing over water into enemy territory and the civilian population could withstand concentrated bombing of urban areas without descending into social unrest that would force the politicians to call a halt to the war. Most importantly, we learned that aerial bombing was capable of damaging and destroying industrial buildings but it required a destructive force and an accuracy of a whole different magnitude to destroy the machine tools and equipment wherein and disrupt production in the face of a determined and organised workforce.

We seem to have cast these lessons aside and proceeded straight down the same road we had just defeated the Germans on!

thank you for your wonderful post, it's good to see that there is other people here that can be objective about history without national bias.

It would be interesting to hear a hypothesis on what might have been 'without' an allied bombing campaign.

@Stern, be carefull with waving that 'national bias' flag again, so far there has been no need to mention it.

it's been repeated on yesterday", channel 12, a few times this week. stephen fry narrating, if it's teh same one.

I think there would always have been an allied bombing campaign. Aerial bombing has proved a most potent weapon of war. Not a war-winning weapon however. For that there is still no substitute for boots on the ground. We have seen that repeated over and over since the end of WW2.

What kind of campaign though? I think that is why Blackdogs post is so interesting. Remember, the air chiefs really did have the ability to shorten the war - constant air attacks on Germany's oil production - but failed to understand this until the closing months of the campaign.

Attacks on Germany's oil production only became more feasible in the latter stages though didn't it?, the Allies had gained enough ground from which to launch these campaigns by then, whereas a general bombing campaign of the German mainland was always possible as it was within range from the UK, the way I see it, and which helps rationalise it for me (because even I agree it all seemed like a waste) is that despite say only 20% of the damage inflicted by the bombing was effective against genuine German production it was really also about tying the Germans up in a defensive role, had the Germans not been forced into self defense they would have much more resource to pour into their offensive campaigns, I didn't get to watch the Stephen Fry documentary...not all of it anyway, but I think recall a mention that much of the bombing campaign was 'requested' by the Russians? for pretty much those reasons.

I was not referring to anyone in particular here, but it happened in the past.

Anyway, the Allied bombing campaign was made of two specific aspects: the pinpoint (more or less accurately) attack of strategic targets from the 8th Air Force and the systematic carpet bombing (AKA "de-housing") done by the RAF.

It's interesting how the Americans were reluctant to take part to it in the ETO but had no problem whatsoever in doing it over Japan..

It has been argued and demonstrated that the de-housing was a counterproductive technique (like the dambusters raids), and it was also argued in 1945 in the British Cabinet that after the war was over, the Allied would have been left with a pile of rubble to fix, which would have proved itself being costly and very difficult.

It's tough to justify all of that bloodshed mainly for retaliation and propaganda, not to mention trying to keep Stalin happy, but unfortunately that's what happened.

Attacks on Germanys oil production were feasible from 1st. September 1939. It is true that Germanys only source of natural crude oil lay in Rumania, out of the range of bombers for the early years of the war but the large refining and synthetic oil plants were within our range. What we really lacked was any real understanding of the German war economy. In later 1941 and early 1942 it became apparent to the war cabinet that our bomber offensive was failing. The decision was taken, with a good deal of secrecy, to abandon 'precision' attacks on individual industrial targets and go for the area campaign where the targets were the civilian workers of these industrial areas and any actual damage to the industries themselves were seen as a useful by product of the campaign. It must also be remembered that Bomber Harris was not a party to these decisions but was brought in to implement them and to his credit constantly urged the politicians to tell the British public the unabashed truth behind the strategic bombing campaign.

The Russians constantly demanded a second front in Western Europe. Whilst Stalin seems to have enjoyed the books of allied photo-recon of bomb damaged German cities that Churchill constantly sent him he was well aware that only armies on the ground could defeat Germany.
Churchill used the SBC as a way of delaying a second front in western Europe for as long as he possibly could in the face of Russian and American demands to get on with an amphibious invasion of France. Both Churchill and his Chief of the Imperial General Staff Alanbrooke had a very healthy respect for the fighting power and tenacity of the Wermacht born from their experiences of the first world war. They were much more content (luckily for us) to let the Germans and Russians bleed themselves dry on the eastern front before committing our scant resources of men and material to an all out assualt on the European mainland once more.

Hmmm...not quite true but the perceived truth. An important difference, no?
Again, what we do know now is that by early 1945 the British night bomber offensive had reached a pitch of precision where our raids were actually
more accurate than the daylight campaign of the eighth airforce where overcast conditions meant that much of their bomb aiming was done by H2S through cloud with the same erratic results the RAF was getting at night in '41/42. The American command fully understood this too but to admit that would mean they could no longer state that "the strategic bomber was not being thrown at the (German) man in the street."

I think the main point Stern was trying to emphasise is the British campaign was immoral and murderous, the RAF wasn't going after strategic targets but more after women and children and babies and family pets.

Well, everything's been said about this topic before anyways, so I do not think it is nessecary to open another fruitless can of "you are to blame!".

Let's just say that I consider this monument quite...voluptuous. Like out of an american hero flick, Armageddon style, lacking any subtlety.

I also find it hard to part the men from the deeds. "They just followed orders, those poor brave men" is an argument long deconstructed in debates over war crimes.

Or if you recognize that this is how society works, you would have to lift countless sentences in the Nuremberg Trials.

However, those snippets aside, my gripe with this whole topic, always has been, probably will be so in the future, is not so much the deed in itself. From a purely human perspective, if I were a british citizen back then, I doubt I would have much problems in bombing the country that bombed mine into smitherness, regardless of who started it.

No, what gets my blood boiling is the lack of honesty in these kind of debates by people who are uneffected by that war, born long after and with an educational background that should make a more objective, principle based debate possible.

It hardly ever is and this monument, in it's final appearance and especially because it is dedicated to that time period instead of a broader tackle, gives this initellectual dishonesty visual appearance. It is a "feel good" monument.


Something to chew over:
Not a single german military branch was solely created to kill civilians on a massive scale.
Those organisations and units geared for mass extermination were of Nazi origin. From a german perspective, that gives you an idea of what kind of connections Bomber command evokes here.

Yep, it's the deliberate decision to attack civilian targets,not hitting them as collateral damage from pinpoint bombing that makes quite the difference.. but again it was done by the Americans as well. I find it somehow grotesque and really difficult to justify, condemning the Nazis for war crimes against civilians and then doing exactly the same thing..

And as usual the eloquence of Bewolf is spotless: it should be looked as a memorial about the casualties of that foolish campaign,not a "feel good" big monument. :-?

Please don't ever compare what the Nazis did with the efforts of the allies in WWII. Or have I misunderstood your point?

No you haven't missed his point I'm affraid, Stern makes it no secret he thinks history is a lie written by the Allies, and very much equates the collateral killing of civillians in the allied bombing campaingns to the deliberate mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.

it's his oppinion and I'm done getting into big fights about it, beyond his naive beliefs he's not a bad chap.

I rest my case.

Come now Bongodriver. That's not how Stern has worded it and I don't quite think thats what he is saying either. However, you can make a case for that view. We have all the war cabinet discussions available. From early 1942 our campaign was aimed at German civilians. It is still a difficult truth. That's why Churchill, ever a man with his eye on history was so keen to distance himself from it in '45.

In the back of each Wermacht pay book were some fine words on the duties and responsibilities of German soldiers written during the Kaisers time. These were universally ignored in every country the German army invaded. The Wermacht, it's soldiers and commanders were complicit in war crimes everywhere they went. There is no getting away from from this, another uncomfortable truth.

And what? the actual targets were strategic, the allies were simply not targeting civillians, they dropped enough leaflets warning of impending raids......or would it have all been easier to digest if the allied bombings were done on the back of revolutionary new technology like ICBM's?

And I never said or even wanted to imply that. My words were "solely created for".

I think it was pretty accurate.

But Bongo, the targets were the civilians. Specifically. Thats what the area campaign was all about. It all culminated in the Americans dropping the ultimate area weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No Bongo, you're bending my words.

My point is that the deliberate decision to attack civilian targets is as unjustifiable as the Luftwaffe bombing campaign of England, aimed at killing innocent civilians and spreading terror among the population.

Churchill was well aware of this and his arm was bent towards the final decision, but his attitude after the war was over really shows how they were well aware of the high price that both sides paid for an offensive that in fact served only to keep Stalin happy.

The dropping of leaflets in a country run by a regime is a very pale justification for what came after. Same applies for the American offensive in Japan.

OK at this point I'm failing to see why there is disagreement to what I said Stern says?

And why would they? there was no need to create any unit solely for that purpouse when the entire German military was at the disposal of the ruling Nazis.

Just wondering but by your statement are you claiming Bomber command was created 'solely' for murdering civillians?

'the aim of this offensive is the destruction of the German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany’

Sir Arthur Harris

The campaign perhaps, but you empasised a point of the creation of a 'unit created solely' for the purpouse of killing civillians, so are you saying Bomber command was such a unit?

the way I see it Bomber command was more than just the area bombing campaign and by that token very much deserve a memorial.

come on Bongo, it's the way you say it, not what you're saying.

Don't you really see the contradiction in condemning the bombing of civilian targets when you're at the receiving end, but justifying it when doing it to others, and with further evidence that in fact doesn't work, but only causes death, destruction and loss of aircraft/aircrews?

What's the point of sanitising such a brutal event?

Do we say the Nazis discreetly made a proportion of the Human race magically dissapear?
When you say Bomber command targeted civillians you are saying they deliberately murdered them don you? in which case what difference does it make how I say it?

Well said.

S!

Yes Bongo, it was, as you put it "deliberate murder", as far as the term "murder" is applyable in a war situation.

The bombing campaign was deliberatly aimed at killing civilians. Not as "collateral", but as a specific target all in itself.

Do you know the concept of a Firestorm?

I fail to see any connection between the holocaust and carpet bombing.

Yes I know what a 'firestorm' is, even that has not been written out of history, but back to my question unless you are evading it deliberately?

do you say bomber command was created 'solely' for killing civillians?

Well,in theory they're both a deliberate attack on a specific ethnic group with the purpose of annihilating it,although the Nazi agenda was surely on a different scale of horror.

Don't forget that US propaganda worked hard at de-humanising the Japanese during the war,which made the decision on dropping the atomic bombs even easier to digest.

Ah no, very very different, the Allies agenda was 'not' to anhilate the Germans, it was to end the war and Germany had to pay a price.
argueably it's much the same situation in the pacific, even the atom bombs didn't anhilate an entire ethnic group, but they sure as hell ended the war.

They were not the same. Dropping bombs on cities in a country you are at war with is nothing like the extermination of members of your own society based on religious belief.

I find the Bomber Command argument a little strange.
The Allies and Axis used artillery on cities, this is much closer to carpet bombing than death camps are. Yet I never hear anything about that being 'murder' or that artillery crews were 'murderers'

Truth is that wartime Germany got what it deserved, no more, no less.
The one person who could have stopped it all was Hitler, sadly he cared a lot less about his people than he did his ego, so he didn't surrender and the bombing continued.

To blame the allies is missing the point. When you look at civillian casualties during WW2 Germany got off lightly.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the allies shoud not have bombed Germany.

The flaw in Blackdog's theory is that it would take three Mossies and therefore three pilots to carry 12,000lb of Bombs to Germany, whereas one Lancaster only required one pilot.

With a limited number of pilots to go around, this would have meant a third of the tonnage of bombs would have been dropped. It's easy to say they could've been used in a more precise manner, but the low level pin-point Mossie squads were specialists with specialist training.
There wouldn't be either the time nor the resources to train every pilot in Bomber Command to this level of skill, or conversely, to produce three times the pilots.

Plus, the use of a heavy bomber force was a brand new weapon which no-one had experience of using, and therefore no-one had experience of its effectivity.
Again, it's easy to apply the wisdom of hindsight to the whole issue, but at the time no one knew what the effect would be.

Nitpicking and distraction, Bongo.
That was it's main emphasies. While in other branches the killing of civilians was indeed mostly collateral, sometimes delibaretly, no other "regular" military branch of any nation was so preoccupied with killing civilians as it's main operational goal over such a long period of time. At least none that I know of.

Now you can point out to the various NAZI organisations, but as I said before, be careful with what kind of organisations you want the comparison.

Btw, it is interesting what even the Daily Mail has to write about that topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-led-them.html

Not really, it's a reasonable question I asked, why else would you make a point like that?

So....do you say bomber command was formed solely for killing civillians? simple yes or no.

We can do that all day long.

Are you saying Bomber command was formed solely for killing civillians.....yes or no, not looking for comparissons or elaborate sentences, I really just want to hear the point of your above statement.

the reason I ask is because the Luftwaffe were bombing British civillians, and somehow that doesn't qualify the Luftwaffe to the same lable.

I'm looking for the war cabinet docs on the national archives that actually do mention the annihilation of the Germans,in the mean time have a read at this

http://www.rense.com/general81/germm.htm

No,don't be silly,they were both offensive branches of the respective air forces.

I know that and you seem to know that.....does Bewolf?

I'm sure he does, have a read at that link I posted Bongo.

'It was not just Bomber Command that was responsible for the estimated 450,000 dead; the US air forces soon abandoned any pretence that they could bomb with precision, and two-thirds of their bombs were dropped blind through cloud and smog. A staggering 87 per cent of all bombs missed their target. American planes also killed tens of thousands of civilians. Nor was Bomber Command ever ordered exclusively to murder the German population. The directive for 'area attacks' of 14 February 1942 contained a long appendix, not mentioned by Friedrich, which listed more precise military and economic target systems, while limiting attacks on cities to those with large industrial areas and extensive workers' housing. For much of the last year of war, Bomber Command was ordered to attack transport, oil and other military targets linked with the war on land as it rolled across the German homeland in 1945.'

yep, Americans were also guilty and had their responsibility in the perpetration of this war crime.

Pretty sure I've read loads of stuff like that, so how about you highlight the salient points you want me to take from it.

Got to just love modern day bleedin hearts.:rolleyes:

No. You can read it quick yourself if you really do care about this topic in its entirety. Besides you wouldn't want my "biased view" to get in the way ;)

Seriously, it's a very good read.

Seriously, I have read that stuff, what exactly is it meant to be changing my mind on? how is it meant to inspire me to go and protest against a memorial to the bomber crews?

I knew you completely missed the point. Nobody here is saying one should protest against the memorial per se, but it's of vital importance to convey the right message about it, not to turn it into a way of exorcising the dark memory of the mass murder of civilians for no purpose whatsoever.

It really shocks me that there's still people nowadays like Winny who think it was good to bomb the Germans "because they deserved it", this "eye for an eye" attitude doesn't make the act of bombing civilians less of a crime.

It hardly is ment to inspire you to do anything. It is your country, your history, your take on it.
Just do not wonder if it causes ambigious reactions and alienation by current generations elsewhere for well based reasons.
If you are willingly taking that into account then there is not need for a debate to begin with. It should not have been dragged into an international forum by the topic starter in the first place, seen as that.

You think I base everything on what Germany did to 'my' country?

BTW are you ready to answer my question?

I didn't miss any points, the allies targeting of civillian infrastructure was less about the actuall killing of civillians and innocents and more about taking the war back to Germany by the only means available, I'm sure if the allies had boots on the ground at that time there wouldn't have been any systematic exterminations of the civil populace, given the level of horror the Nazis (who were Germans) were committing I find Winny's attitude more understandable than Bewolf's bizarre claim Bomber command was formed solely to kill civillians.

I never said it was good. Don't put words into my mouth, speak for yourself.

It happened. It probably was criminal. But in the context of the time what else were the allies gonna do? Having a memorial to the men who were in the bombers is simply that. A way to remember very young men forced into a horrible situation with very little chance of survival, who died.

I think you are intentionally derailing the raised issue, playing Ace of Aces wannebe.
I refer to my last post and in it's eventuality, that is all there is to be said about it.

The days such issues become simple is the day the modern nation state is no more.

No I simply asked a question based on your statement, but as this will be like getting blood from a stone then I guess I will have to settle for a 'yes you do think bomber command was formed solely to kill civillians'

And I gave you an answer. If you want details, ask for them, I am not going to answer to quotes or repetitions you use to deflect issues thrown at you. Go play those games with someone else.

I said that the memorial was simply for the crews, not what they did. I did not say it was a simple issue.

I specifically asked you not to give details, I just wanted the yes or no kind of answer, there is no deflection going on here...well from you there is.

you made a statement...

and I was intrigued by what exactly you were asking us to 'chew' over, the claim not a single German military branch being created solely to kill civillians on a massive scale was highlighted, on a thread about bomber command, who did kill civillians and it sounded just like you were claiming that bomber command was an example of what you were asking us to 'chew' over.
To be honest I could have queried the strange disassociation of the Nazis, almost like you were brushing it under the carpet, but as I recall the Nazis were from Germany and did create some particularily nasty military units.

you said (and I quote) "Truth is that wartime Germany got what it deserved, no more, no less". That too is a bit of sweeping statement, don't you think?
agree.

RAF Bomber Command was formed on 14 July 1936 Bewolf.

Regarding the legality of the campaign, an article in the International Review of the Red Cross stated:

In examining these events [aerial area bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.

And I answered

And you understood that quite correctly. And yes, the Nazis did create some particulary nasty military Units. Amongst those were the Waffen SS. Those guys commited some much more hideous crimes then the ones already occuring in a total war environment.

I think you understand perfectly what I say, Bongo. I am saying that the UK in some areas employed tactics and methods also employed by Nazi Germany in the field of war crimes. And the problem is not so much that they did it in the first place, but the staunch refusal to see it as what it ultimately was, especially in late 44/45.

And why 'must' I be carefull bringing up a Nazi unit that was formed solely for exterminating civillians?

Why have you deflected again and taken the elaborate deception with answering my question?

But you didn't, you just mentioned the aerea bombing campaign (it's a campaign not a military unit)

I think everybody saw it for exactly what it was, why else would a memorial take 60 years to come if it didn't lay heavy on the conciousness?....staunch refusal?.....as Stern would say 'OH puhlease!'

I agree with you in that the memorial should be for the crews of Bomber Command. They deserve to be remembered.

I think what the others are getting at is that the memorial may not be seen that way by the wider public, a lot of people in the UK seem to think that whatever Bomber Command did during WW2 was ok becuase it was the good guys doing it, and that is wrong.

yes, I said that. However i didn't say it was a good thing, and I didn't mean it in a nasty 'we gave old Jerry a right good bashing' way either.

My point is that the war had to hapen on German territory. The full horror of war had to be seen by the people. From an allies point of view. The only means available were bombers, and bombers kill civillians. Almost always. Even today.

Conversley i wouldn't object to any German memorial. Memorials are there to remind you of the complete and utter waste of young mens lives over some BS egomania.. On both sides.

Countries should be able to remember the boys who died fighting for some nonsense that the vast majority didn't start, didn't want to be in and ultimately died for. They should also be left to do this wthout people getting all offended by it. It's a memorial ffs. Not a celebration of the bombing of Hamburg.

You can both commemorate the bravery of men who made great sacrifices in a war and at the same time disapprove of the political decisions that led to the war or to particular actions in that war.

The issues are totally separate. Commemorating the men does not necessarily endorse the actions.

It's also important to bear in mind what constitutes "justified" action very much depends on who won war. Here are Robert McNamarra's (US Secretary for Defense under Kennedy and Johnson) controversial comments about the fire bombing on Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians in one night during the time McNamarra was serving in the XXI Bomber Command under Curtis Lemay.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62076453370496

Winny and Galway, thank you for your posts guys, I'm glad we can agree on such an important topic.

I totally agree with Galway.

I have no problem in saying that some German units acted heroically during WW2 - even though I abhor the reason.

The thing with war is that despite the vast numbers of people involved it's a very personal experience, it's your life, your fight to survive.

Individuals acted heroically on both sides time and time again, be it a German unit fighting to the last man to cover the retreat of their comrades, or a 19 year old climbing the ladder into a Lancaster, night after night, knowing what was coming.

So let us remember the men, the youth, the tragedy, waste and heroism.
Without the politics.

And nice one SJ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUpr0...ature=youtu.be

enough said.

The End.
 

.