Bomber boys - bbc one

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Fine.

But was General Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal' or was it his leaders Rooseveldt/Trueman, who sanctioned these actions? - As it was Churchill as Head of the War Cabinet, in consultation with the Air Ministry who defined the policy that Harris (as a good 'General') carried out to the best of his abilities?
It was only post Dresden that Churchill began to distance himself politically from the Area Bombing policy, in fear of his post war political reputation. So who was the 'War Criminal'? Churchill? You might as well say then that all the leaders of the victorious nations were 'war criminals'.

Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standart setting process applayable to all, or mere winners justice?

Or let's say it this way. Before all this bomber combat honoring, this trial was seen as valid and trendsetting in Germany. Since this debate about honoring those bomber pilots came up and especially since the statue for Bomber Harris was errected, it is more and more seen as mere winners trial, where nationalism and hero worshipping trumps general moral values, completly in line with the soviet case back then.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standart setting process applayable to all, or mere winners justice?

Or let's say it this way. Before all this bomber combat honoring, this trial was seen as valid and trendsetting in Germany. Since this debate about honoring those bomber pilots came up and especially since the statue for Bomber Harris was errected, it is more and more seen as mere winners trial, where nationalism and hero worshipping trumps general moral values, completly in line with the soviet case back then.

There was an interesting debate on how this idea is too scary or hard to compute for some people, the formula "we're the good guys, so we're allowed pretty much anything for the sake of our good cause" seemed to apply to a lot of unjustifiable stuff, with people failing to comprehend or remember than in their own eyes, the Nazis were the good guys and if they won it would have been their measure of good and bad, not ours.

[csThor]

Just a few things that reading brought to my mind ...

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).

2.) To criticize Rommel for not following orders to the letter is a bit too simple. He was totally in line with Prusso-German tradition in that sense and the prussian and german armies have bred that kind of officer (bold, aggressive, offensive-minded and hell-bent on independence) for centuries. Even a certain Hans-Joachim von Ziethen defied his king when Frederick ordered a charge and Ziethen declined because he felt the situation was not yet favorable:

"After the battle his Majesty may have my head but during battle he may allow me to make use of it."

In this Rommel was by no means alone. Guderian defied orders as early as 1940 when he received a stop order and declared the following advance of his Corps as "armed recon". Same goes for the withdrawal in front of Moscow in late 1941. Manstein objected to Hitler's orders more than once and finally got sacked because of it. History is full of such little (or larger) infractions but they're the result of the pecular way the prussian and then the german armies operated and trained their officers corps. (another personal tip: "The German Way of War" by Robert M. Citino)

As for his blatant disregard of the Italians there's a history and it is not limited to Rommel. Rommel's first meeting with the Italians was in 1918 and what he saw there gave him a thorough disregard of italian potential as warriors. It was an unfair impression, after all the country had never been a fan of participating in the war at all, but it stuck. Secondly, however, many german officers felt that the italians weren't persecuting the war with the vigor and resolution that was necessary. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the small circle of german liaison officers to Supermarina which in late 1940 wrote reports on italian capabilities that painted a depressing picture and argued - forcefully - for a german takeover of the war planning and execution. Rommel was the most visible of the officers who had contempt for the italians as warriors but he was by no means alone. To the italian's defense it must be said that they were saddled with a virtually non-existant armament industry, that the participation in the war was not popular again and that they did not have the germans' "warrior tradition" with all that it entailed.

[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.

[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.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

Italy or Germany?

[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.