Bomber boys - bbc one

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Yes, they even made a movie out of Fatherland, which I recommend.

As per your observations, I agree that it was the general attitude, the average German officer arrogance is probably what cost him the war, and unfortunately it wasn't something based on the perception of the allies as somewhat less trained or worse equipped, it was just plain arrogance.

I met a Regia Aeronautica pilot some years ago, Giosue' Carillo, he was based in Sciacca, Sicily, on the same airfield where the JG26 operated from. They shared the same machines (he flew 109s received from Germany with Italian markings) and the same airfield, but they didn't share much else.

He had a bit of the German looks and also spoke German, so he befriended some of the Luftwaffe pilots there, but operatively communications were kept to a minimum and collaboration was very crude, if non existent.

He often met Luftwaffe 109s in the air, but they would normally waggle their wings and fly off, they never worked together in joint sorties or patrols.

First, I like Italy and Italians. Had some great times there and I also have great symphathy for a people that could not care less for the adventures of it's political leadership.

But if you argue in line of military professionalism, then this:

Arrogance is a very "relative" word and more often then not the result of hurt pride on the blaming side. I think the failure of the italian armies in the Balkans, Greece and N. Africa, requiering massive german support, and the Taranto raid did a lot to strenghen those mutual feelings. Simply stating that german "arrogance" cost them the war is true in the them dealing with the civil populations in Europe, espcially eastern Europe, but not so much in the case of the italian military, which disqualified itself on many occassions in general, despite some shining examples, units and individuals, in between.

Blame Mussonlini for bringing a country that was neither willing nor prepared, nor had the professionalism for a war of this scale into this conflict.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

First, I like Italy and Italians. Had some great times there and I also have great symphathy for a people that could not care less for the adventures of it's political leadership.

likewise, I love Germany and their attention to details

But if you argue in line of military professionalism, then this:

Arrogance is a very "relative" word and more often then not the result of hurt pride on the blaming side. I think the failure of the italian armies in the Balkans, Greece and N. Africa, requiering massive german support, and the Taranto raid did a lot to strenghen those mutual feelings. Simply stating that german "arrogance" cost them the war is true in the them dealing with the civil populations in Europe, espcially eastern Europe, but not so much in the case of the italian military, which disqualified itself on many occassions in general, despite some shining examples, units and individuals, in between.

Blame Mussonlini for bringing a country that was neither willing nor prepared, nor had the professionalism for a war of this scale into this conflict.

I surely blame Mussolini for dragging an unwilling country into a war with an ill equipped and poorly managed Army and Air Force, but it's not like the Italians had the exclusive in the dismissive treatment from the Germans: Japanese, Rumanians, Hungarians etc.. none of the Axis powers involved collaborated to a standard near to the Allies' one, and collaboration proved to be a defining difference.

The Nazis really believed in their superiority, and the wake up call that maybe things weren't exactly as they thought arrived too late (fortunately!).

[bongodriver]

it's a shame they overlooked one very important detail....the blood thirsty megalomaniac they put in charge.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by csThor

...

1.) The history is always written by the winners. If you don't believe that try to look up the history of the wars of Rome vs Carthago and how the Romans villainized their opponents to the point of razing their city and spreading salt after their ultimate victory. The historians don't know that much about Carthago and its interior workings - most of the sources are roman and therefor not really reliable. And the reason for all of that? An ordinary power struggle between two aspiring nations.

Now, with our modern perspective, the NS ideology was so far off the moral and humane scale that it's not funny today, either. They are the villains, from our perspective today, but if they'd have won the war (what a hair-raising thought, especially for me as a german) they would have been the shiny knights and their opponents would have been the villains (personal tip: read "Fatherland", a what-if novel about a german police investigator in the 1960s who has to solve a murder case in Berlin only to find the truth about the holocaust and dies to make sure the info gets out to the US).

...

While agreeing that there is some truth in the 'history is written by the winners' idea, I wonder if it is perhaps a little too simple and dismissive of other factors. To accept it you need to believe that there is no real moral sense in the world - that all morality is relative and a construction of particular cultures. You rightly say above that from our modern perspective Nazi Germany is viewed as beyond the pale morally, but it's the conclusion that if they had won we would now all view their actions as heroic and right that I want to question.

My own position (maybe unfashionable these days) is that there is a natural and deep moral sense in people that finds certain actions repugnant and indefensible. There is evidence for this in Nazi Germany - how many amongst the general German populace knew what was being done in Belsen or Auschwitz? When a regime chooses certain extreme actions it can typically only carry them through by either concealing them from the bulk of their own people, by using lies and disinformation, or by terrorising large segments of the population into complicity.

In my understanding one of the reasons for the construction of the 'industrial scale' extermination camps was the unforeseen psychological toll on the members of the SS death squads in Soviet Russia. Even amongst the most polically-committed members of the regime close-up exposure to slaughter on that scale had psychological consequences that proved difficult to sustain.

Many ordinary German citizens felt moral repugnance towards the Nazis at the time. Many chose active resistance and paid for it with their lives.

Surely the main idea in 'Fatherland' is exactly about this natural, moral 'reality' breaking through the massive repression that would be needed by the victorious regime to sustain their image as heroic, just, winners.

Given the above I would suggest that if the Nazis had won they would not have been able to sustain the 'fiction' of their justness or rightness because inevitably truth would prevail. Tyrannies ultimately collapse because in time their actions prove to be out of alignment with the deep needs of their own people.

I've some thoughts on the moral issues of the Allied bombing campaign versus the Nazi death camps too, but it will have to wait

[csThor]

Originally Posted by kendo65

While agreeing that there is some truth in the 'history is written by the winners' idea, I wonder if it is perhaps a little too simple and dismissive of other factors. To accept it you need to believe that there is no real moral sense in the world - that all morality is relative and a construction of particular cultures. You rightly say above that from our modern perspective Nazi Germany is viewed as beyond the pale morally, but it's the conclusion that if they had won we would now all view their actions as heroic and right that I want to question.

My own position (maybe unfashionable these days) is that there is a natural and deep moral sense in people that finds certain actions repugnant and indefensible. There is evidence for this in Nazi Germany - how many amongst the general German populace knew what was being done in Belsen or Auschwitz? When a regime chooses certain extreme actions it can typically only carry them through by either concealing them from the bulk of their own people, by using lies and disinformation, or by terrorising large segments of the population into complicity.

In my understanding one of the reasons for the construction of the 'industrial scale' extermination camps was the unforeseen psychological toll on the members of the SS death squads in Soviet Russia. Even amongst the most polically-committed members of the regime close-up exposure to slaughter on that scale had psychological consequences that proved difficult to sustain.

Many ordinary German citizens felt moral repugnance towards the Nazis at the time. Many chose active resistance and paid for it with their lives.

Surely the main idea in 'Fatherland' is exactly about this natural, moral 'reality' breaking through the massive repression that would be needed by the victorious regime to sustain their image as heroic, just, winners.

Given the above I would suggest that if the Nazis had won they would not have been able to sustain the 'fiction' of their justness or rightness because inevitably truth would prevail. Tyrannies ultimately colapse because in time their actions prove to be out of alignment with the deep needs of their own people.

Then how do we explain people like Reinhard Heydrich? How can we square the essentially two persons in one body: the loving father and husband, the lover of classic music and gifted violinist vs the ice-cold planner and executor of the Holocaust? How do we explain the involvement of so many utterly respectable people in key positions of the Holocaust (like the engineers who designed and built the camps - who did not question their orders and kept working despite any kind of misgivings they may have had)? How do we explain the trainload of ordinary people working as informants for the secret service in pretty much any kind of totalitarian society (see NKVD, see Gestapo, see Stasi, etc etc)?

The way I see it there is an animalistic streak of ruthlessness in most of us which pertains to one's own advancement. It is weaker in some, stronger in others ... and it is the perfect tool for dictatorships not only to detect opposition within but also to push its own more drastic projects by offering economical and social benefits for those who do this dirty work.

[Sternjaeger II]

CsThor, I'm sure you heard the name Alan Turing, one of the key men for the victory in WW2 and condemned in 1952 for homosexuality (because it was considered a crime) and accepting the chemical castration by the very same country that fought against the horrors of Nazism..

As you said, unfortunately it's all relative

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

CsThor, I'm sure you heard the name Alan Turing, one of the key men for the victory in WW2 and condemned in 1952 for homosexuality (because it was considered a crime) and accepting the chemical castration by the very same country that fought against the horrors of Nazism..

As you said, unfortunately it's all relative

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree that the treatment of Turing was abhorrent, it was also actually the absolute norm in the majority of countries worldwide for Homosexuality to be a criminal offence, based upon 'Christian Morality' in the West of course. A few exceptions like Iceland, Poland, and Italy (who have always to their credit been amenable to and non judgmental on the issue of 'Man-Love' lol, dating back to Antiquity.)

Turing was not forced to 'accept chemical castration' he voluntarily chose it rather than face a years imprisonment.....which is quite distinct to people being rounded up and executed/gassed/liquidated/murdered for being gay; there is no 'relativism' to speak of, if a comparison is being drawn this amounts to equivocation.

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times these days and even have people like Graham Norton on the telly! Good show. Can't stand Julian Clary though, nothing to do with him being gay (doesn't bother me one bit)....He's just not funny lol.

[kendo65]

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

(the above was written before, but posted after CSThor's response )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Heydrich and specific individuals - there will always be particular people with combinations of sociopathic or psychopathic personality traits, and extreme political views that will allow them to balance and reconcile brutality towards chosen targets with civic duty and normal family activities. My argument above largely stands or falls on the reasons why the Nazis were able to get away with it. Ie how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?

I suspect some of the above questions could be applied to some Allied airmen who may have had deep misgivings about what they were doing to German cities. I was struck in the Bomber TV programme by the crewman who cracked up during a mission. 'Lack of moral fibre'. One expressed reservations but justified his participation with 'They started it'. That's not meant as a criticism of the individuals, more a comment on the near-impossibilty of maintaining any kind of normal judgement of behaviour in such an extreme situation as a war.

How much personal responsibilty do ordinary individuals carry when they are basically 'caught' in situations of deep powerlessness with few or no ways out?

[csThor]

Originally Posted by kendo65

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

I don't think we will ever know. I guess there was at least a sense of something dark happening, but in a state like nationalsocialist Germany one didn't ask too many questions.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by kendo65

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

(the above was written before, but posted after CSThor's response )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Heydrich and specific individuals - there will always be particular people with combinations of sociopathic or psychopathic personality traits, and extreme political views that will allow them to balance and reconcile brutality towards chosen targets with civic duty and normal family activities. My argument above largely stands or falls on the reasons why the Nazis were able to get away with it. Ie how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?

I suspect some of the above questions could be applied to some Allied airmen who may have had deep misgivings about what they were doing to German cities. I was struck in the Bomber TV programme by the crewman who cracked up during a mission. 'Lack of moral fibre'. One expressed reservations but justified his participation with 'They started it'. That's not meant as a criticism of the individuals, more a comment on the near-impossibilty of maintaining any kind of normal judgement of behaviour in such an extreme situation as a war.

How much personal responsibilty do ordinary individuals carry when they are basically 'caught' in situations of deep powerlessness with few or no ways out?

Regarding the question of the complicity or otherwise of the German population, its still the subject of historiographical inquiry. The consensus appears to be that the majority of civilians were aware of atrocities being committed, though not entirely aware of the Wansee conference and the official doctrine and policy of the 'Final Solution' and the precise details of the death camps. They were certainly aware of the forced removal of 'undesirables' to concentration camps and enforced/slave labour, and actively and extensively involved in its facilitation and prosecution.

An Oxford University Historian named Robert Gallatley conducted thorough and respected research into German media both prior to and during the war, drawing the conclusion that there was '"substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in the prosecution of the Holocaust, though he saw no evidence for majority awareness of the precise details.

This has not gone unchallenged however, and the debate continues.

I am of the opinion that what happened in Germany could have most certainly happened anywhere, given the same conflagration of circumstance and variables. To suggest (as some idiots do) that the German people were somehow inherently 'evil' or existed in some kind of personal moral vacuum is patently ludicrous. This is of course clearly evidenced by those who chose bravely to resist (albeit a minority). What it did unfortunately illustrate is what Humanity is capable of, and particularly the insidious and all pervasive effect of a Fascist states propaganda machine upon a populace.

The psychological phenomena of 'herding' has been posited as a possible explanation, and experiments like the 'Stanford prison experiment' *and the 'Milgram experiment' clearly illustrate how otherwise 'normal' people can behave when told to do unspeakable things by what they perceive to be an 'authority' figure. The cult of personality was nurtured and used to great effect by the Nazis, and was a powerful force indeed.