Bomber boys - bbc one

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan

I'm afraid you are going to be annoyed ... http://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/bomber-harris

PPP

didn't know about that one, and frankly the description on that page talks for itself. As far as I'm concerned that's even more offensive to all the "bomber boys" who never lived to see a memorial dedicated to them, but had a statue of the man who send him to be slaughtered.

Harris was a stubborn, vengeful individual whose tactics were completely wrong and caused the death of thousands of people on both sides for his distorted ideas; celebrating him with a statue is definitely out of place.. I wonder who had the idea to erect a statue on his name.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

didn't know about that one, and frankly the description on that page talks for itself. As far as I'm concerned that's even more offensive to all the "bomber boys" who never lived to see a memorial dedicated to them, but had a statue of the man who send him to be slaughtered.

Harris was a stubborn, vengeful individual whose tactics were completely wrong and caused the death of thousands of people on both sides for his distorted ideas; celebrating him with a statue is definitely out of place.. I wonder who had the idea to erect a statue on his name.

There is no reason why he should not have a statue. War is war and for centuries it hasn't been confined to battlefields or strict rules of engagement. Every individual of an enemy state is a combatant.

WW2 is the best example of "total war" and Harris did his job well. An unpleasant and tragic job, certainly, but in war you need the ruthless b*stards to give the orders.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

There is no reason why he should not have a statue. War is war and for centuries it hasn't been confined to battlefields or strict rules of engagement. Every individual of an enemy state is a combatant.

WW2 is the best example of "total war" and Harris did his job well. An unpleasant and tragic job, certainly, but in war you need the ruthless b*stards to give the orders.

..well according to your theory we should have a statue for Himmler, since he did his job quite well too

it is a known fact that the area bombing idea was a bad idea, which cost not only innocent lives and RAF aircrews, but caused a lot of losses and great expenditures even after the war. It is also a fact that it's not because of area bombing that the war ended, it was just a tragic waste.

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general

Better than you i'd wager.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Better than you i'd wager.

I'm no general, and unlike you I keep national pride and military history well separated, but anyway I'm sure you heard of Market-Garden..

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm no general, and unlike you I keep national pride and military history well separated, but anyway I'm sure you heard of Market-Garden..

Also heard of El Alemain. National pride has nothing to do with it.

Not going to dispute market garden was a failure because in patently was, but not going to conveniently ignore what came before as you have subjectively done yet again with your wealth of knowledge on military history.

No general is perfect, Rommel whoever, all have successes and failures, given enough time in command.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Also heard of El Alemain. National pride has nothing to do with it.

Not going to dispute market garden was a failure because in patently was, but not going to conveniently ignore what came before as you have subjectively done yet again with your wealth of knowledge on military history.

No general is perfect, Rommel whoever, all have successes and failures, given enough time in command.

well... El-Alamein was his victory, but an easy one, considering he was running against an exhausted and over-stretched Afrikakorps and Italian Army, both without supplies and significant air support by the end of the North African campaign, and fighting against an enemy who had bigger numbers in terms of troops and logistic support. Everything else after that was a total failure (Sicily/Anzio landings, D-Day/Caen, Market-Garden).

Perfection doesn't belong to human being, let alone Generals, but the balance between success and failure makes the difference between the legendary good and bad ones.. and remaining on the WW2 theme, I'm sure you heard about Patton.. that was a General.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..well according to your theory we should have a statue for Himmler, since he did his job quite well too

it is a known fact that the area bombing idea was a bad idea, which cost not only innocent lives and RAF aircrews, but caused a lot of losses and great expenditures even after the war. It is also a fact that it's not because of area bombing that the war ended, it was just a tragic waste.

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general

You're just trolling with the Himmler comment so I won't rise to the bait.

You're also trolling with the Montgomery mention but for the record I do think that Montgomery was a great general.

I am not convinced it is a "known fact" that area bombing was a bad idea. There are arguments for and against. You're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.

It is illuminating that the existing Harris memorial was paid for by those that he commanded. Maybe those that did the actual job had/have the right take on things.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

You're just trolling with the Himmler comment so I won't rise to the bait.

why? If total war means justifying the killing of innocents"for a good cause",does it matter how?

You're also trolling with the Montgomery mention but for the record I do think that Montgomery was a great general.

I am not convinced it is a "known fact" that area bombing was a bad idea. There are arguments for and against. You're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.

You surely have a different approach (and probably understanding) to military history. What makes you think of Montgomery as a great general exactly? And what are the valid arguments for area bombing?

It is illuminating that the existing Harris memorial was paid for by those that he commanded. Maybe those that did the actual job had/have the right take on things.

It is not still quite clear who are the members of this Trust, and I doubt he was too popular with the majority of the men he commanded..

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

why? If total war means justifying the killing of innocents"for a good cause",does it matter how?



You surely have a different approach (and probably understanding) to military history. What makes you think of Montgomery as a great general exactly? And what are the valid arguments for area bombing?


It is not still quite clear who are the members of this Trust, and I doubt he was too popular with the majority of the men he commanded..

You surely must understand the difference between attacking another soverign nation and the systematic extermination of anyone considered undesirable. Definite troll comment.

To use your own usual arguments, nothing you have said is evidence to support your opinions, just generalised comments. There is a theme of inviting arguments in order for them to be countered, but without any rational argument made to support your own views.

Back up your own arguments first and I'll respond, or let the argument die and the thread return to appreciation of a great programme. Your choice.

G'night.