People usually refer to World War II as a ‘good war’, one in which good (the Allies) triumphed over evil (the Axis powers). But how can the Allies be considered untainted when they initiated actions with horrific consequences, including: • the RAF and USAF firebombing of German cities such as Hamburg and Dresden • the rape and murder of German civilians by Soviet troops at the end of the war • the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and, especially, Nagasaki by the United States.
According to Niall Ferguson, ‘We allied ourselves with a dictator [Stalin] who was every bit as brutal as Hitler. We adopted tactics that we ourselves had condemned as depraved, killing prisoners and bombing civilians.’
Was it worth it? Or do you think, like the Italian writer Primo Levi, who spent a year in Auschwitz, that no peace could ever efface the crimes that had been committed in the war – by both sides?
Maybe we should just be grateful that, in most modern democracies, individuals do have enforceable rights and the govts (sometimes) try and do their best for them.
Mankind IS cruel and war is, by it's very nature, ruthless. At least it has to be if you want to be on the winning side.
Trying to enforce too many ethics is a leftwing delusion - even the Vatican has never been an eden in an earthly sense and neither have any of the Islamic theocracies that I am aware of.
Is expecting ethnics and moral behaviour from people, whose primary mission is secular, unrealistic ? Not for nothing is Machiavelli still read today - that's about the reality of people and power.
Answer to point 1: the allies did not initiate the bombing horrors of ww2 and considering the Luftwaffe tried to flatten London, Coventry, Plymouth, Manchester, Bristol etc etc we should't feel so bad.
point 2: Soviet troops may have raped their way across eastern europe but were only doing what the germans, SS and gestapo did during Barbarossa.
point 3: In my opinion hiroshima and nagasaki were justifiable in returning the compliment of how they looked after all our allied pow's.
The alternative would have been for the Allies to have done nothing which would've been equally unforgiveable and probably resulted in even more death and suffering.
If you're going to look at the tactics involved, as opposed to the reasons for going to war, has any war in history been carried out in what might be deemed a "good" way ?
Churchill said something on the lines of "jaw, jaw is better than war, war" for good reasons. Since an over precise personal adherence to standards that are generally deemed good or ethical (in a leader) could lead to your entire population being left exposed to those who don't have your standards of behaviour, I'd rather have a strong ruthless b**tard in charge which meant we were respected and left in peace rather than a sweet but weak leader who encourages the external ruthless to prey on a weak country.
Originally posted by Holdtheline: Answer to point 1: the allies did not initiate the bombing horrors of ww2 and considering the Luftwaffe tried to flatten London, Coventry, Plymouth, Manchester, Bristol etc etc we should't feel so bad.
point 2: Soviet troops may have raped their way across eastern europe but were only doing what the germans, SS and gestapo did during Barbarossa.
point 3: In my opinion hiroshima and nagasaki were justifiable in returning the compliment of how they looked after all our allied pow's.
Point 1 - most of the German bombing was tactical and aimed initially at the war production. For example the "flattening" of Coventry was largely limited to factories in the centre and the death toll was in the hundreds. This compares with the firebombing of Hamburg with at least 50,000 dead, about the same as the total British civilians dead in the whole of WW2. It was not until after the RAF attacked Berlin that Hitler ordered the attacks on London which unintentionally enabled the RAF to claim that it had won the Battle of Britain. The German airforce never had any heavy bombers to flatten cities.
Point 2 - I, for one, am ashamed to have such barbarians as "allies". If we sink to the depths of our enemies we are no better.
Point 3 - The atom bomb attacks were totally unnecessary and if you regard "revenge" attacks as justified you are condoning the sort of treatment that the inhabitants of Lidice or Oradour sur Glane suffered from the Nazis.
Originally posted by Lett328: [Point 3 - The atom bomb attacks were totally unnecessary and if you regard "revenge" attacks as justified you are condoning the sort of treatment that the inhabitants of Lidice or Oradour sur Glane suffered from the Nazis.
Brought the war to a rapid end and saved a lot of lives.
I was under the impression that if the nuke wasn't dropped then the loss of life would have been a lot greater. Not only in landings but previous to landings, area and precision bombing by the USAF and the RAF.
The nazis bombed London, we bombed them. In an age were pin point bombing was a dream until later in the war and only by a few units, it was bound to happen. I am glad they did not have a heavy bomber. Things might have been different.
Originally posted by Lett328: [Point 3 - The atom bomb attacks were totally unnecessary and if you regard "revenge" attacks as justified you are condoning the sort of treatment that the inhabitants of Lidice or Oradour sur Glane suffered from the Nazis.
Brought the war to a rapid end and saved a lot of lives.
A fiction that has prevailed. I first became aware of the situtaion when Tony Benn was interviewed some years ago and he had only become aware himself that the American military was desperate to ensure that the war did not end until they had had an opportunity to test the atomic bomb on Japan. Negotiations had been virtually completed save for agreement on the position of the Japanese Emperor. As no assurances could be obtained from the Americans, the Japanesr were not prepared to surrender. After the two atomic bombs the Japanese surrendered and, surprise surprise, despite no assurances the Japanese Emperor was not held responsible for the war, just what the Japanese had held out for.
Originally posted by Tomark: I was under the impression that if the nuke wasn't dropped then the loss of life would have been a lot greater. Not only in landings but previous to landings, area and precision bombing by the USAF and the RAF.
See my reply to the point above. I don't believe that there was any prospect that the Americans would have risked American lives in an invasion of Japan - it was just a post facto rationalisation for the dropping of atomic bombs.
quote:
The nazis bombed London, we bombed them. In an age were pin point bombing was a dream until later in the war and only by a few units, it was bound to happen. I am glad they did not have a heavy bomber. Things might have been different.
The bombing of London came about by accident. The Luftwaffe had previously stuck scrupiously to bomb*** military targets but on one occasion two bombers got lost and dropped bombs on West London killing about 10 people. In retaliation, either as an act of Machiavellian genius or pure dumb luck, Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin and on three consecutive nights minor damage was done by a handful of planes to Berlin suburbs. This so incenced Hitler that he switched the Luftwaffe's assault on the RAF to the bombing of London thus saving the RAF from total destruction and making the British people aware that there really was a war going on. That the British and American thought they could break the will of the Germans through bombing is a mystery as bomb*** of London had only made the British closer and more determined to defeat their enemy.
Yes, it did come about by accident but the nazis must have been daft to think they could minimise civilian damage in an age where bombing was not exactly an art so to speak. And seeing as there was only one real way to carry the war to the enemy at the time, what did they expect? Personally I believe the bombing campaign did a whole lot for us. Morale included.
Stalin was as bad as Hitler; the morality of bombing Dresden was a bitty iffy; nuking Japan was over the top. All of these points, as expressed in tonight's programme, hardly represent a 'new history of the 20th century'. Most of this was covered in World at War decades ago, and without the annoying Scots accent (only kidding). Does anyone out there really think much of this stuff is new?
The Nazis showed they weren't above waging war on civilians during the Spanish Civil War and the Japanese killed more people in Nanking alone than both atomic bombs.
The bombing of Germany diverted a significant proportion of German industry and manpower to home defence, for example 50% of the 88mm and 128mm gun barrels. The demands on the aircraft industry prevented the Germans from developing a decent fighter-bomber which might've had some effect on allied forces post D-Day.
All Niall Ferguson's programmes have proved is the tendency for opposing sides to use propaganda to de-humanise the enemy. It makes killing them much easier.
quote: Originally posted by Holdtheline: Answer to point 1: the allies did not initiate the bombing horrors of ww2 and considering the Luftwaffe tried to flatten London, Coventry, Plymouth, Manchester, Bristol etc etc we should't feel so bad.
point 2: Soviet troops may have raped their way across eastern europe but were only doing what the germans, SS and gestapo did during Barbarossa.
point 3: In my opinion hiroshima and nagasaki were justifiable in returning the compliment of how they looked after all our allied pow's.
Point 1 - most of the German bombing was tactical and aimed initially at the war production. For example the "flattening" of Coventry was largely limited to factories in the centre and the death toll was in the hundreds. This compares with the firebombing of Hamburg with at least 50,000 dead, about the same as the total British civilians dead in the whole of WW2. It was not until after the RAF attacked Berlin that Hitler ordered the attacks on London which unintentionally enabled the RAF to claim that it had won the Battle of Britain. The German airforce never had any heavy bombers to flatten cities.
German tactics prior to the Battle of Britain(on the continent) was very much geared to annihilating the morale of civiians. That went for bombing raids as much as anything else. To pretend they were ignorant of the deaths caused to British civilians in Birmingham before their "change of tactics" in September 1940 beggars belief.
Sure, the scale of the allied bombing raids from 1943 onwards has to be question in terms of its efficacy. It has to be questioned in terms of whether it brought the war to a quicker end.
quote:
Point 2 - I, for one, am ashamed to have such barbarians as "allies". If we sink to the depths of our enemies we are no better.
Was it worth it? Or do you think, like the Italian writer Primo Levi, who spent a year in Auschwitz, that no peace could ever efface the crimes that had been committed in the war – by both sides?
There are some wars where the ends really do justify some of the means. WW2 was the war that fitted that criterion.
Originally posted by decrypted: There are some wars where the ends really do justify some of the means. WW2 was the war that fitted that criterion.
For the British WW2 was a case of hypocracy. War was decalared on Germany because it invaded Poland, but then so did the Soviet Union.
The result was that the British chose to align itself a totalitarian regime which had already killed millions of people and would kill many millions more during and after the war. There is justified sympathy for the victims of Nazism yet the victims of the Soviet regime are almost totally ignored.
1.It was not until after the RAF attacked Berlin that Hitler ordered the attacks on London which unintentionally enabled the RAF to claim that it had won the Battle of Britain. The German airforce never had any heavy bombers to flatten cities.
Incorrect. The bombing campaign against London that occurred during the Battle of Britain was a strategic mistake by Goering after mistakenly believing RAF airfields had been rendered ineffective. German heavy bombers during WW2 included the Heinkels and Junkers, which flew over London with fighter escort in large numbers.
2 I, for one, am ashamed to have such barbarians as "allies". If we sink to the depths of our enemies we are no better.
Ashamed that the sacrifice of 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians was the single largest reason why the Nazis lost the war? Even so, the Cold War in 1945 revealed that the only reason why Russia were our allies were because they were the enemy of our enemy, and therefore our friend. We had little choice.
3 A fiction that has prevailed. I first became aware of the situtaion when Tony Benn was interviewed some years ago and he had only become aware himself that the American military was desperate to ensure that the war did not end until they had had an opportunity to test the atomic bomb on Japan.
Tony Benn, despite his worldly expertise, can only see things through rose tinted glasses wit a distinctly anti-British sentiment.
4 The bombing of London came about by accident. The Luftwaffe had previously stuck scrupiously to bomb*** military targets but on one occasion two bombers got lost and dropped bombs on West London killing about 10 people.
It was no accident Goering delibrately targeted our civilians, as Blitzkreig tactics had done so in the early years of the war. The bombing of London was a strategic, if costly, decision to the Nazis allowing time for the RAF to recover. You seem to imply that it was Britain fault that we got bombed by the Nazis, which is a fallacy.
5 For the British WW2 was a case of hypocracy. War was decalared on Germany because it invaded Poland, but then so did the Soviet Union.
This has no factual basis and seems to be another example of left wing retentiveness about British history, which is a sensibility from the so-called intelligensia of this country to be embarrassed and apologetic for virtually every involvement of Britain in the world.
6 The result was that the British chose to align itself a totalitarian regime which had already killed millions of people and would kill many millions more during and after the war. There is justified sympathy for the victims of Nazism yet the victims of the Soviet regime are almost totally ignored.
A valid point, but the worldly responsibility of standing up to the USSR simply could not be done by a nation faced with poverty and heavily in debt due to a world war. The shame game cannot be applied ahistorically for victims of the Stalin regime on Britain. If we did not ally with the Russians, it is likely that I would be writing this in German.
Originally posted by superalias: German heavy bombers during WW2 included the Heinkels and Junkers, which flew over London with fighter escort in large numbers.
The only heavy bomber that Germany developed was the Heinkel HE177 and that did not see service until 1942/43. In 1940 the principal bomber was the HE111 with a bomb capacity of 2,000 kg which compares with the British Lancaster's capacity of 10,000 kg.
quote:
Ashamed that the sacrifice of 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians was the single largest reason why the Nazis lost the war? Even so, the Cold War in 1945 revealed that the only reason why Russia were our allies were because they were the enemy of our enemy, and therefore our friend. We had little choice.
The Soviet dead is a fluid figure which gets bigger whenever the Russians want to get their way. The really important figure is the military dead and here the Soviets by their tactics were responsible for huge levels of unnecessary deaths. In 1939 were the Soviets the enemy of our enemy? I think not - when they met up after carving up Poland there are pictures of the army commanders shaking hands. So why not declare war on the Soviet Union?
quote:
Tony Benn, despite his worldly expertise, can only see things through rose tinted glasses wit a distinctly anti-British sentiment.
I think you are wrong. I don't agree with Benn on many matters but the facts on which he bases his opinions are usually correct.
quote:
It was no accident Goering delibrately targeted our civilians, as Blitzkreig tactics had done so in the early years of the war. The bombing of London was a strategic, if costly, decision to the Nazis allowing time for the RAF to recover. You seem to imply that it was Britain fault that we got bombed by the Nazis, which is a fallacy.
The Allies have much to thank Goering for, Dunkirk, the Blitz, Stalingrad - all miscalculations with disasterous consequences for the Axis powers. Nevertheless the indicriminate bombing of London was induced by Churchill's actions in bombing Berlin and Goering's overestimation of the capacity of the Luftwaffe to flatten London. Just watch Hitler's frenzied speech after the Berlin bombing.
quote:
5 For the British WW2 was a case of hypocracy. War was decalared on Germany because it invaded Poland, but then so did the Soviet Union.
This has no factual basis and seems to be another example of left wing retentiveness about British history, which is a sensibility from the so-called intelligensia of this country to be embarrassed and apologetic for virtually every involvement of Britain in the world.
Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in 1939? Have you never heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where Germany and the USSR carved up Europe into spheres of influence?
quote:
..... the worldly responsibility of standing up to the USSR simply could not be done by a nation faced with poverty and heavily in debt due to a world war.
As I said before Britain did not stand up to the Soviet Union in 1939, I was not talking about the post war period. I think it more likely that if Britain had stayed out of the war it would have been more powerful now as the Soviets and Germans would have fought to a stalemate and Britain would not have expended all its wealth on war.
quote: 5 For the British WW2 was a case of hypocracy. War was decalared on Germany because it invaded Poland, but then so did the Soviet Union.
This has no factual basis and seems to be another example of left wing retentiveness about British history, which is a sensibility from the so-called intelligensia of this country to be embarrassed and apologetic for virtually every involvement of Britain in the world.
Britain declared war on germany to fulfill its promise to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland. As Poland was divided up between Russia and Germany in Sept 1939 one would assume that Britain's efforts would be directed as much against Russia as against Germany.
But in war, events move on and Britian was on the verge of bankruptcy and held little sway over the two new powers at the end. Europe was a very different place in 1945 to what it was in 1939.
Nonetheless, many british soldiers who were in germany at the end of the war have told me that, after the german surrender, they expected to have to continue on to fight the russians, based on what they had been told in 1939 rather than the realities of 1945.
