Bomber boys - bbc one

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

If they won the war, who would be the hero and who would be the war criminal?

Are you really saying heroes and villains are defined purely by the outcome of a given conflict, not by the conduct during the conflict? Really? If Nazi Germany had won the war would they have really been heroes? I think if I was being kind I would say your statement is too broad and oversimplified.

Area bombing sure was/is controversial. But it's so easy for us to have negative views of the action taken now from the comfort of our 70 year post war position. I am no military strategist, but, if those in command at the time truly believed that area bombing was the only way to win the war, then who are we (I'm talking as an Englishman) to argue? If all the options were properly considered and it was felt that allied defeat and the invasion/occupation of western Europe, including the UK, was inevitable/very likely without area bombing, then I don't have a problem with the decisions taken. War is a horrible thing - there is no way around it. We just need to understand that.

PPP out

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan

Are you really saying heroes and villains are defined purely by the outcome of a given conflict, not by the conduct during the conflict? Really? If Nazi Germany had won the war would they have really been heroes? I think if I was being kind I would say your statement is too broad and oversimplified.

erm.. is this a serious question? Do you think the Nazis went around thinking they were the bad guys? They were indoctrinated into a creed that was the only way for them, made of racial pride and will of revenge. Many dissented on Hitler's politics of course, but they either kept it for themselves or got in serious trouble. I'm not saying I don't think they were, but if you were a Nazi you would have ended up agreeing with the mass. The majority believed they were in the right, like any side to a war is, the "evil villains" are just James Bond movie stuff..

The "heroes of the Soviet Union" raping and pillaging on their way to Berlin, area bombing in Europe (done by both sides), atomic bombs, the war crimes committed by Tito in Jugoslavia.. the killing and raping done by Algerian troops whilst advancing in Italy..History is written by the winners, who wins is the good guy.

Think about it, Russia was our ally until 1945, then they went from being the good guys to our enemies, and it's not like their politics changed much until 1989..

Area bombing sure was/is controversial. But it's so easy for us to have negative views of the action taken now from the comfort of our 70 year post war position. I am no military strategist, but, if those in command at the time truly believed that area bombing was the only way to win the war, then who are we (I'm talking as an Englishman) to argue? If all the options were properly considered and it was felt that allied defeat and the invasion/occupation of western Europe, including the UK, was inevitable/very likely without area bombing, then I don't have a problem with the decisions taken. War is a horrible thing - there is no way around it. We just need to understand that.

PPP out

The decision of area bombing was a much controversial one and that didn't get approved on the first spot anyway, because many in the war cabinet argued that it would have been the same as going down to the same level of the Nazis. When it was eventually approved the USAAF firmly detached itself from such policy, saying they would have carried out their daylight operations of pinpoint bombing to damage factories and other strategic objectives (applying a peculiar double standard in 1945 with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. )

The deliberate bombing of civilian targets was in line with what the Germans did during the Blitz, a form of retaliation disguised as an offensive strategy to win the war, in a time where everybody was tired of the war and propaganda struggled to give positive news that would show there was a definite and effective way to end the war quickly.

Definitely the worst chapter of the RAF history, and again it can't be blamed on the men that executed their orders, but only on their commander and his insistent (as much as wrong) idea that area bombing would have won the war, instead of just being a mass murder.

[DD_crash]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The deliberate bombing of civilian targets was in line with what the Germans did during the Blitz, a form of retaliation disguised as an offensive strategy to win the war, in a time where everybody was tired of the war and propaganda struggled to give positive news that would show there was a definite and effective way to end the war quickly.

If I remember correctly, didnt Goering say that Britain could be defeated by bombing? As this was all theory at the time (both the US and Britain both thought that bombing would be the way that future wars would be fought) it hadnt been proved either way. It could also be argued that the Blitz had the opposite effect that the German High Command wanted. Churchill knew that hadnt worked but thought that the RAF could do better. Also I wonder what the people who now say that the bombing policy was totally wrong would have done to take the war to Germany? Daylight raids by both the RAF and the US showed the price to be far too high. Even in daylight with no fighter or AAA I doubt if targets could be hit so I think that they had no choice but to do what they did. One thing that struck me was when the aircrews said that they could see their target as a red glow on the horizon whist still flying over England. On another note I do think that from late 1944 large scale raids were not needed.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by DD_crash

If I remember correctly, didnt Goering say that Britain could be defeated by bombing? As this was all theory at the time (both the US and Britain both thought that bombing would be the way that future wars would be fought) it hadnt been proved either way. It could also be argued that the Blitz had the opposite effect that the German High Command wanted. Churchill knew that hadnt worked but thought that the RAF could do better.

yep, and despite all this, Harris still thought that area bombing in late 1944 was the solution..

Also I wonder what the people who now say that the bombing policy was totally wrong would have done to take the war to Germany? Daylight raids by both the RAF and the US showed the price to be far too high. Even in daylight with no fighter or AAA I doubt if targets could be hit so I think that they had no choice but to do what they did. One thing that struck me was when the aircrews said that they could see their target as a red glow on the horizon whist still flying over England. On another note I do think that from late 1944 large scale raids were not needed.

I'm not saying that bombing was totally wrong. The total obliteration of Cologne, Dresden and other German cities on the other hand was unnecessary, since the invasion had already started and it was unstoppable.

[bongodriver]

well I have a different understanding of the war in Northern Africa: the turning point was at the very beginning, when Vichy France surrendered, leaving a void and space for the Allied invasion to storm in. Other factors like limited or no supplies from Europe, the breaking of the Ultra code and inferior numbers in terms of troops and air support meant that it would only have been a matter of time, especially after the Germans started concentrating their efforts in Barbarossa.

Bring whatever factors into it you like...the outcome of the conflict was due to how it was managed by both sides.

lets make a hypothetical boxing match between matched opponents, one guy looses ballance....at that instant he is disadvantaged, the other guy isn't guaranteed a victory, he might also slip attempting the deciding blow.....you can see what I'm trying to say can't you.

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

Lol.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Bring whatever factors into it you like...the outcome of the conflict was due to how it was managed by both sides.

lets make a hypothetical boxing match between matched opponents, one guy looses ballance....at that instant he is disadvantaged, the other guy isn't guaranteed a victory, he might also slip attempting the deciding blow.....you can see what I'm trying to say can't you.

well, I do, but it's not entirely pertinent to the Northern Africa Campaign scenario.

Let me give you a better example and see what you think about it: Russian generals like Zhukov didn't win their battles because they were fine tacticians, they simply poured millions of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of vehicles onto the battlefield, crushing everything on their way. 20 million deads for the Great Patriotic War as they call it is a mind boggling number, but that's the price they were ready to pay for victory. Does this make them good generals?

Patton's and Monty's advance into mainland Europe was highly dependent on fuel availability, so much that they often strongly argued about who should get it first and even air bridges struggled to keep up with it.

Then more than ever, mobility of logistics was the key to victory. Germany was quite good at it, but as resources diminished, so did the fighting capability, so that's the scenario that developed in Africa, exacerbated by the strong weather factors.

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

LOL

I'm sorry if it comes out as a "I'm right, you're all wrong", but it surprises me how things that I give for granted in history (especially considering that I've done most of my history studying at a British university, and had a lot of work done on area bombing for a mega-presentation) are often either ignored or not considered valid, and put against non factual arguments, but usually national pride (and there's nothing wrong in national pride, it just doesn't have to get in the way of an objective observation of history).

[bongodriver]

Try not to go down the Nationalist route please.....I assure you it has nothing to do with it.

it just so happens I am only 1/4 english at best, my origins are oddly enough mostly from places with a historical tendency to be at odds with the British......try Boer and throw in a bit of German French and Irish and a large dolop of Russian.

Oh and I wasn't born in the UK either and I lived in Italy before coming here.