If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Is politically correct revisionism going to turn the men of Allied Bomber Command into war criminals?   (surreyleader.com) divider line 488
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

15363 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2006 at 10:54 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



488 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-28 11:22:01 AM
I think it should be pointed out that, in total war, the civilian population is a legitimate target, as one of the components of the ability to wage war.

It should also be pointed out that, whether the destruction on the ground was significant before late '43 (when the American air groups began to bomb in significant numbers, with long-range escorts), the Germans were forced to take millions of men and thousands of heavy guns from the front to defend Germany. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe suffered heavily from combat and operational casualties. When operation Overlord was staged, Eisenhower was able to guarantee the landing forces that any planes over the beaches would be friendly, a direct result of forcing the Luftwaffe to come up and fight.

The value of the strategic air offensive cannot be calculated simply in terms of curtailed production.

Will the brave airmen who took the war to the enemy become retroactive war criminals? Never in my eyes, but there's no telling what might happen in a culture that thinks celebrity weddings are important.
 
2006-11-28 11:22:03 AM
Is Political Correct revisionism going to turn the men of Allied Bomber Command into War Criminals?

Well according to the Asinine tag it is.
 
2006-11-28 11:22:08 AM
Political Correctness is a disease
 
2006-11-28 11:22:38 AM
how much higher would production have been without the bombing campaign? Or if the planes defending Germany hadn't been holding off bombers and had been sent to Russia?

People need to stop whatifing WW2.


I'm sorry, I just have to point this out.

it's easy to sit back with 50+ years of perspective and decide what leaders back then should have done.

I see nothing wrong with that. I'm sure we all believe, or want to believe, that those leaders did what they thought was right at the time. How is that in any way contradictory to look back and think what should have been done with the clarity of hindsight?

\You know, the whole learn from history thing.
\\Or be doomed to repeat it.
\\\First time using slashes evah!
\\\\Feels so good...
 
2006-11-28 11:22:39 AM
ericjohnson0: There is no 'controversy' except the lying PC historical revisionists WANT controversy.

The museum's description is hardly problematic. The writer of the linked editorial is the one trying to stir up controversy.
 
2006-11-28 11:22:56 AM
ericjohnson0: It is not the truth. The strategic helped bring down German war industry. Without it, the war would have drug on far longer.

Asides from your bad spelling and grammar, it's amazing how some people are incapable of criticizing WW2 at ALL.

The bombings were done to bring down the German War industry and to bring the war to the German people to break public will to support the war. It did not have the intended effect. It did not do what it was supposed to do on the scale it was supposed to do. In retrospect, the planes would have been more effective against other targets.

Is that criticizing the pilots? No. They did their job well.
Is that demeaning the US? No. Based on the info and intel, it was a reasonable plan. It didn't work as expected. You know, the US does make mistakes. Even in WW2.
Is that being a liberal pinko commie America Hater? No. If you think that, DIAF.
 
2006-11-28 11:22:57 AM
thejoyofpi: Excellent point. I think allied leaders like Haig and Nivelle were murderous idiots. That doesn't mean I have anything but respect for the courage and sacrifice of WWI soldiers.

Worse still, until the Russians left and the Americans joined find a leader of any WWI power that did not share a grandmother no matter which side.
 
2006-11-28 11:22:59 AM
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

So many of these guys in the military consider themselves to be rough and tough.

And here they are whining like a bunch of whipped puppies cause somebody said something about them they don't like.
 
2006-11-28 11:24:18 AM
HellbentForLeather: STUPID jackass liberals. Your party has the perfect mascot.

Congratulations! You've been Farky'd to troll!
 
2006-11-28 11:24:49 AM
dracula FTW!
 
2006-11-28 11:24:57 AM
HellbentForLeather: It's reached the point where the American flag is offensive to the average liberal.

That's the most idiotic I've read on Fark today.

The soldiers were obeying orders. That's what soldiers do. Now liberals spit upon their deeds. That's what liberals do.

Yeah, those liberal Democrat Presidents FDR and Truman sure were a treasonous bunch.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:09 AM
ericjohnson0

There is no 'controversy' except the lying PC historical revisionists WANT controversy. How about listing the life expectancy of these flyers, which was low? How about mentioning the sacrifice in deaths and years of life taken away from these young men? Not the Nazi homeless. The Germans gave Hitler a free reign to drag them into hell... they deserved to burn at the time.


Christ, it's not like the virtues of the Army Air Corp crewmen hasn't been shouted to high heaven. I'm sure that there isn't a single museum that mentions what those men did or how much they sacraficed.

It is not 'controversy' to state that something may not have been necessary, and it takes nothing away from the men who were following orders to bomb those cities. Do you this those pilots and crew woke up one day and said "You know, we could be bombing factories and stopping the war machine, but we feel like indiscriminately bombing civilians"? Do you honestly think that this article is trying to give that impression?

You need to stop playing the role of the poor prosecuted American that the world is out to get. Yes, these pilots are heroes. But that doesn't mean that everything they have done in thier life is full of virture and done for the right reasons.

Even if they all were white knights riding into battle on their B17's full of thermite and HE, WHY ARE YOU SO AGAINST THE TRUTH?

Let's take this argument to absurditity. If Superman catches a group of criminals, you tell him thanks. If Superman catches a group of criminals, but unnecessarily levels a city block, you tell him thanks, but point out that he didn't need to level that city block. That doesn't mean he didn't do a good thing.

Here's a newsflash - some people think honest and open discussion abuot the United States and actions taken by this country is a good thing. We don't just shut up because we might offend your whitewashed, propogandist / apologist views of the world.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:14 AM
tchamber

The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested. Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 60,000 Germans dead and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war.

What the hell is wrong with telling the truth?


That's exactly what I planned to post. This is a case of one side of a bitterly contested argument (the veterans) claiming superior access to truth and arguing that accurately describing the controversy is prejudicial against their side. It is a controversy, despite whatever beliefs that either side has, and representing it as a controversy is the most reasonable course of action for a museum. I mean, it's not a memorial, or a glorifying monument.

Also, what was acceptable or unacceptable in the past may not be now. It may be completely asinine to try to have them identified or charged as war criminals, but it's important to show how moral standards change. Recognizing that moral standards change is a good way of getting away from the belief that morals are absolute and unchanging, and could be useful in tempting people away from fundamentalisms (of either conservative or progressive varieties)...
 
2006-11-28 11:26:16 AM
lotustuned: The Germans got everything they deserved.

Um...the people of Germany didn't - nor did the people living in Tokyo that we firebombed. There's a difference between attacking military targets and targeting civilians. It's the same crap we condemn others for (like terrorists, for example) - so we ought to at least have the guts to admit when we were wrong. Get a book and read about the firebombing campaign against Japan - which did nothing to end the war - and resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 civilians - almost all of whom were guilty of nothing more than living there.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:26 AM
The victors write history, We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, this is how it has always been and always will be.


Hitler was not totally to blame, Germany was in a bad place with its economy so Hitler pointed a finger to a group of outsiders(the jews) to blame and people went with it.

GWB is not totally to blame for the Iraq war, the US is in a bad place with its economy so GWB said WMD and we go to war with Iraq, and the people go along with it.


It is hard to bomb only military targets when they sit right ontop of or under civilians. Gunner/anti-aircraft turrets were ontop of apartment buildings with soldiers living in the apartments along with civs. There is a fine line between civ and military when it comes to people, the military relies on the civilian population to produce goods and do services. If you kill the military men then they just take more civs off the streets and make them soldiers.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:29 AM
twilson2

They go to a church that sez "love your enemies" and "thou shall not kill" and actually fool themselves into thinking they did nothing wrong.

A better translation is 'thou shall not murder' and it's perfectly possible to love one's enemies while at the same time killing them, strange as that sounds. War is not after all, a matter of personal animosity for most of the combatants, but simply an unpleasant job one must do in defense of one's family and people. If you doubt that, look at the many examples of camraderie between officers on both sides of a war (in prison camps and elsewhere where hostilities didn't serve the greater cause).

The catholic church's ancient but developed doctrine of the 'just war' explains most of these things in a clear way, and as far as most any sane person in concerned stopping global Nazi-facist aggression in WWII is about as close to being a 'just war' as one could imagine. I'm not catholic by the way, and this doctrine is by no means unique in christendom but they have some of the best and best known philosophy done in that area.

Other than that you've got a situation of pacifism (read: let the jews and gays and everybody else get slaughtered and the non facist nations of the world fall one by one) which a very few christian groups endorse... WWII being one of the best examples of why.

As for the historical facts, it's arguable how much difference the allied bombing campaign made in this or that incident (the conventional campaign anyway, as the use of nuclear weapons was an overwhelming success in terms of military goals and limiting total casualties on both sides), but it isn't arguable that it made some difference... and when the other side of the scale is the death of your own citizens by genocidal facist aggresors, I'd say it's a calculated exchange in every sense.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:33 AM
I think the text of the plaque is misleading and that these veterans have a valid point.

The last statment - "the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war" is highly dubious at best.

Bomber command highly restricted the German warmachine and diverted much of their resources and troops to defensive operations. Hitler's Armaments Minister, even said that the bombing of Germany was 'the greatest lost battle on the German side'.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:38 AM
It seems like this museum is re-revising history to be more accurate. The events of WWII were revised and sugar-coated from the start. Both sides pulled a lot of shiat. It wasn't as black and white as we think. Of course the bombings of Germany were critical to the war effort, but we did a lot of unecessary crap. Don't forget Dresden and Nagasaki.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:45 AM
HellbentForLeather: STUPID jackass liberals. Your party has the perfect mascot.

www.jolaf.com
I'm glad none of those jackass Democrats were in office during WWII.
 
2006-11-28 11:26:54 AM
IPOOPONU
What do you suggest we do? Set up an organization that will alter the facts as societie's views change so you will never get your feelings hurt?

No, society's views haven't changed... our so-called educators are trying to change what we know to be true. We fought the Nazis, we beat the Nazis and we did it because they were Evil.

They BEGGED to get their collective asses kicked and they got it.

End of Story. BUT...

These clowns want to tell us we just are not as smart as them... we can't see the subtle nuances and that with 'sensitivity' and 'understanding' we can see the 'bigger picture...' That picture being the one they construe in their warped sense of artificial guilt and shame.
 
2006-11-28 11:27:14 AM
Here's a better question: Why are some of you *cough*ERIC*cough* so desperately afraid of living in a world with moral ambiguity?

You know why I brought up the firebombing? Because far more than the bombing of Germany, it *did* break Japan. Utterly. It probably did what nuke-mongers claimed Hiroshima did - won the war in days rather than years. But through deliberate murder and terrorization of people who (unlike the Allies, I might add) had no direct say whatsoever in what their government did.

Does that make it justified? I don't know. But I don't clench up and start freaking out if someone suggests it might not have been.

All of you who think recitation of FACT is somehow disparaging to the "heroes" of the war - why are you so insecure? Is your worldview so dependent on being THE GOOD GUYS that you can't even spare a moment of introspection? To say "Gee... maybe we shouldn't've done that." Or maybe even go so far as to say, "That kinda sucked... Let's not do that in the future."

But apparently, that's too much. And instead you must change your fear into hate, and project it onto a group of people (the "PC Liberals") who are every bit as ficticious as the squinting, buck-toothed "Nips" seen in Bugs Bunny cartoons of the day.

Both exist solely as an outlet for the small-minded to pour their anger into.
 
2006-11-28 11:27:16 AM
I'm not usually an enthusiastic supporter of war, or violence in general, but it bugs the hell out of me that a few people who happen to have skimmed through some Vonnegut think they have the moral authority to condemn these guys. The second World War is the closest thing to a "just" war this world has seen in a very long time.
 
2006-11-28 11:27:33 AM
HellbentForLeather: The soldiers were obeying orders. That's what soldiers do. Now liberals spit upon their deeds. That's what liberals do.

STUPID jackass liberals. Your party has the perfect mascot.


A Red Maple Leaf? I guess its pretty savvy at least. And by the way, when our guys were over there fighting Nazis they WERE the Liberals. Maybe if there had been a few less Fascists in the US or UK that crap woudl have been stopped in Barcelona long before.
 
2006-11-28 11:27:51 AM
PC LOAD LETTER

Umm...which targets should the planes have been used against if not the German industrial machine?
 
2006-11-28 11:29:00 AM
Hillybillypharmacist
I'm glad none of those jackass Democrats were in office during WWII.

AMEN to that.

Why are we at war with Germany? THEY never attacked us! After six weeks of death and chaos we must admit that Normandy is a quagmire... we MUST withdraw...
 
2006-11-28 11:29:17 AM
Well, it all comes down to one hippie peacenik who said "If we had lost we'd be tried as war criminals."

That hippie peacenik happened to be Air Force General Curtis LeMay.
 
2006-11-28 11:29:29 AM
This whole thread and no mention of Bomber Harris? Hmmp.
 
2006-11-28 11:29:39 AM
Midnight Poptart: I'm not usually an enthusiastic supporter of war, or violence in general, but it bugs the hell out of me that a few people who happen to have skimmed through some Vonnegut think they have the moral authority to condemn these guys. The second World War is the closest thing to a "just" war this world has seen in a very long time.

I don't see anyone "condemning" the pilots, nor do I see anyone questioning whether WWII was "just". I do see some questions about whether some of the strategy employed was morally justified.
 
2006-11-28 11:29:42 AM
ericjohnson0
No, it applies to every whining, sniveling little cockroach who would defame these men who protected the rights we hold so dear.

You know what? The truth is not defamation. (Really, look it up.) War is hell. And in WWII, we fought war on different terms than we fight it today. Those were the rules of engagement at the time. The men who fought the war, on both sides, played by those rules, and are heroes of their respective nations. (Yes, even the Germans - not everyone who fought for the Third Reich was a guard in a concentration camp. And any fan of military aviation knows the best German pilots had ten times the kills of their American counterparts.)

So no, the only sniveling little cockroaches are the ones who want to whitewash the truth and turn the war into some romantic heroes vs. villains ballad. It's simply not true. War is hell. These people were warriors and as such helped create that hell. Let us look at that boldly and fearlessly and still be able to say, as I believe we can, "It was necessary, and these men are American heroes for doing it."
 
2006-11-28 11:29:57 AM
vertigo32

Indiscriminately bombing civilians huh? Ya...no revisionism there.
 
2006-11-28 11:30:17 AM
jman11jman: WWI


Just finishing John Keegan's book. The entire episode of WWI is mind boggling.

thejoyofpi: I think allied leaders like Haig and Nivelle were murderous idiots.

Ludendorff wasn't much better. Even after Operation Michael stalled (1918), he still wanted to press the offensive.
 
2006-11-28 11:30:38 AM
pendy575
You seem to be asserting that the bombing of civilian areas during the Allied attacks on German cities was purely collateral damage. Churchill himself referred to the "bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts".
 
2006-11-28 11:30:56 AM
WizardX: Here's a better question: Why are some of you *cough*ERIC*cough* so desperately afraid of living in a world with moral ambiguity?

You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Didn't you get the memo?
 
2006-11-28 11:31:04 AM
>> There is no 'controversy' except the lying PC historical revisionists WANT controversy.

Lotta hawks expressing their outrage here.

From the safety of their couch
 
2006-11-28 11:31:21 AM
-----------------
Mr. Coffee Nerves


Does anyone doubt for a second that if any of the Axis nations had the ability they would have chosen NOT to bomb population centers in the U.S.?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole "London Blitz" predicated on the idea of killing/terrorizing the civilian population instead of the military goal of neutralizing the RAF airfields?
------------------

'we' are suppose to be better than 'them', more ethical than 'them', and more moral than 'them'. When we stoop to our enemies tactics we are no better, no more ethical, and no more moral than them.
 
2006-11-28 11:31:24 AM
These veterans are acting like idiots. Nothing in the display mentioned "defamed" the men who carried out the missions - it merely questioned the morality and efficiency of the missions as a whole. No-one's denying the brave service of the servicemembers who carried out their orders - it's the judgement and motives of our leaders that are being examined. And yes, Hiroshima was a war crime - ask Teller.

"PC revisionism"? Is that what we're calling anything that isn't blind jingoism and self-worship these days?

As for all you "THEY PROTECTED YOUR FREEDOMS, SO SHUT UP" folks - if you morons can't see the contradiction inherent in attacking someone for exercising the freedoms you claim to venerate the veterans for protecting, you're not worth talking to. C'mon back when you've become a rational adult, k?
 
2006-11-28 11:31:46 AM
FarkinNortherner

And what were those pretexts exactly?
 
2006-11-28 11:32:03 AM
Did any of you see "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers?"

Or did ya'all only watch those cheesy 60s and 70s war movies where the bullets all make the same "pwing!" sound and everyone just falls, dead, without ever bleeding.

It's not revisionism to point out that war is hell. It's ACCURACY.
 
2006-11-28 11:32:10 AM
Dancin_In_Anson: The entire episode of WWI is mind boggling.

Probably the single biggest pointless waste of life in human history.
 
2006-11-28 11:32:13 AM
IPOOPONU: What do you suggest we do? Set up an organization that will alter the facts as societie's views change so you will never get your feelings hurt?

I have it! Why don't develop a body politic that examines its own past AND its current decisions constantly. And get this, after that it could make moral choices on what it has learned.
Sounds a little crazy I know, but wouldn't it be wild?
 
2006-11-28 11:32:31 AM
OK, time to do the same that the neotards are doing in this thread.

How DARE the facist conservatives declare that the Constitution is just a "god damned piece of paper!" They are, as usual, faking patriotism to pursue their own agenda of dominating every single aspect of our lives. No amount of lying is big enough for them, if it acheives their vision of "security". Our forefathers fought and died for the Constitution and now they think it's quaint!

The British were a totalitarian monarchy who was destroying our right to independence and self-determination. Anyone who thinks that was a bad idea is UNAMERICAN and is spitting on the graves of the Founders.

STUPID jackass conservatives. They will take down this country and wrap it in the flag, claiming to be Patriotic. Thank god for Liberals to fight against a revisionist Constitution.

/See, it's easy. I can make shiat up AND be a total jackass AND a troll AND wrap it in a complete strawman that no one has actually said.
//Keep making up arguments and fight a non-existant enemy, conservatives. It's worked so far!
 
2006-11-28 11:32:45 AM
If the current bunch of jagoffs had been in the White House in 1941 they would have responded to Pearl Harbor by waging war on Thailand.
 
2006-11-28 11:32:51 AM
"the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

What defines "late in the war?" I would say that "late in the war" is the point where you've nearly defeated the enemy. Are they trying to suggest that the 999,999 bombs that fell "early" in the war had nothing to do with the victory, and that we could have saved 60,000 lives if we simply waited to drop the last bomb that WON the war? Wow.
 
2006-11-28 11:33:33 AM
jerry2a

lotustuned: The Germans got everything they deserved.

Um...the people of Germany didn't - nor did the people living in Tokyo that we firebombed. There's a difference between attacking military targets and targeting civilians. It's the same crap we condemn others for (like terrorists, for example) - so we ought to at least have the guts to admit when we were wrong. Get a book and read about the firebombing campaign against Japan - which did nothing to end the war - and resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 civilians - almost all of whom were guilty of nothing more than living there.


In a sitaution of 'total war' (which has a very specific meaning in military and philosophical terms) where you are fighting for the very survival or you nation and people and basic way of life, it has been held by the leadership of all countries that almost all means are acceptable.

For example, the soldier with the gun is the one posing the direct threat, but that soldier is only a threat because there are soldiers without guns supplying him with bullets, and those bullets are carried to the soldiers without guns on trucks by civilians, and the trucks and bullets are made in factories elsewhere by other civilians and funded by the general industrial base of the city and so on and so on.

When the situation becomes as desperate as it was in WWII, the general political thinking is that all bets are off, it's morally incumbent upon the allies to win the war and in order to accomplish that goal attempting to disrupt and deestroy every step in the process of facist warmaking is not just permissable, it's an absolute moral necessity. This or that action may or may not shorten the war in an observable sense (it's very very hard to say what has when all the small factors are taken together) but winning the war outright, and as quickly as possible is crucial, particularly given the unimaginable human and economic (also human ultimately) cost of each and every day in a war of that scale.

The only real question there is to make sure you identify situations of 'total war' accurately, when you are on the right to begin with and the threat is as large as to be unavoidable or impossible to deal with with (with confidence) by lesser means.
 
2006-11-28 11:33:46 AM
misanthropologist: That's exactly what I planned to post. This is a case of one side of a bitterly contested argument (the veterans) claiming superior access to truth and arguing that accurately describing the controversy is prejudicial against their side. It is a controversy, despite whatever beliefs that either side has, and representing it as a controversy is the most reasonable course of action for a museum. I mean, it's not a memorial, or a glorifying monument.

Well, to give them credit the were mostly cheesed off that the meeting with them was cancelled but it does sound like there is dialogue to make it more accurate without painting it over with a nationalist brush.
 
2006-11-28 11:34:34 AM
The answer is no. Now STFU and GBTW, freeper.
 
2006-11-28 11:34:39 AM
Those soldiers died to protect our freedom of speech

And anybody that sez anything bad about the military should have their ass kicked.
 
2006-11-28 11:35:03 AM
jerry2a

lotustuned: The Germans got everything they deserved.

Um...the people of Germany didn't -


they voted the Nazi power overwhelmingly into power knowing full well of its empire building agenda. They got what they asked for.
 
2006-11-28 11:35:03 AM
twilson2
And here they are whining like a bunch of whipped puppies cause somebody said something about them they don't like.

You willing to take a bullet for people you don't know? You willing to get your legs blown off so some long haired, drug infested, dredlock and birkenstock wearing liberal arts major can call you a war criminal? I'm not, but they do... every day.

I have the highest respect for those who wear the uniform.

So to you my whiney little cockroach I shall say:

STFU and GBTW, mmmmmkay?
 
2006-11-28 11:35:19 AM
clevershark: If the current bunch of jagoffs had been in the White House in 1941 they would have responded to Pearl Harbor by waging war on Thailand.

Not to mention doing business deals with our loyal friends and allies, the Hirohito family.
 
Displayed 50 of 488 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report