Bbc Suggests That Britain Was 'worse Than The Nazis'.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2952971/BBC-s-insult-hero-pilots-Veterans-rage-Dresden-coverage-attacks-Britain-worse-Nazis-ignores-RAF-s-sacrifice.html

Why do we constantly find the need to criticise and condemn ourselves, for our past actions?

[steg]

Not my past actions, I wasn't born then

[ToraToraTora]

they sowed the wind, end of.

[jim360]

On a purely statistical sense we actually were. More tonnage of bombs dropped on cities; more civilians killed during the bombing raids, etc. Whether or not it's morally worse is open to debate -- but if you are going to praise the RAF for their bravery and sacrifice, why not the Luftwaffe? Their pilots were also brave, daring, risking life and limb in service of their country. No credit for their sacrifices?

[alexanderd]

Typical BBC, anything to run the country down. Dont they know the germans bombbed london, coventry and many other cities?

[Sqad]

Jim

\\\\why not the Luftwaffe? Their pilots were also brave, daring, risking life and limb in service of their country. \\\\

I totally agree....BUT...the Germans lost the war.......they came second and you know my philosophy in life....." there are no prizes for coming second."

[rumbletum]

As the saying goes.... Lest we forget.

The Nazis, horrific though they were, don't have a monopoly on monstrosities I'm afraid and if you read our history, you will find loads of instances to this effect.
Witness the Highland Clearances, ethnic cleansing at it's worst is just an example.

[ichkeria]

Well that doesn't chime with the BBC coverage I saw, which mentioned attacks on other cities notably Coventry and featured the Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledging that it was terrible but 'these things happen in war' Which is true
But this was an anniversary of one particularly terrible event of that war and as such surely merited some coverage.
Had the Nazis won the ear who knows maybe Bomber Harris and co would have been tried for 'war crimes' rather than the war crimes trials we did have.
Generally war crimes trials are conducted by the winners. That's how it goes. But maybe I missed the bit where the BBC coverage featured calls for the authors of Dresden to be branded 'war criminals' it would not be extraordinary though if, when it was the subject of the programme, there was to feature the view that it was a war crime - whether you agree with that or not.

[tamborine]

Dresden was stolen property from jews, it deserved crumbling!

[jim360]

Here's another interesting statistic.

It's generally accepted that 60,600 British Civilians were killed during the war by Axis bombing raids.

It is also generally accepted that about 67,000 French civilians were killed
during the war by Allied bombing raids.

[Gromit]

It is hard to defend the bombing of London, Coventry, Swansea, Liverpool by the Nazis. It was indiscriminate bombing and mainly civilians were killed. It's main aim was to terrorise

By the same token, the bombing of Dresden was the same. It targetted the civilian population. 25,000 were killed for no real military gain.

It was all out war, and the Getmans were doing it to us, but it was hardly our finest hour.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// Here's another interesting statistic.

It's generally accepted that 60,600 British Civilians were killed during the war by Axis bombing raids. ///

/// It is also generally accepted that about 67,000 French civilians were killed
during the war by Allied bombing raids. ///

That difference could only be expected since there was a larger area to be bombed.

Another interesting fact is that Paris unlike London was hardly ever bombed, except for the Paris western suburbs on the 9th and 15th September 1943, when 395 Parisians were killed.

During the London Blitz 28,556 Londoners were killed

[lindapalmara]

//By the same token, the bombing of Dresden was the same. It targetted the civilian population. 25,000 were killed for no real military gain. //

Gromit. I think you will find that Dresden was targeted because it was a vitally important rail junction and had a massive marshalling yard through which men and supplies were sent every hour to the Northern and Southern sectors of the .eastern front. Moreover there were 110 factories in the city employing 50,000 people in theNazi War effort. The Dresden raid was not merely about terrorising the population, it was about crushing an important part of Germany's infrastructure, bringing the war to an end and saving countless lives.

[sandyRoe]

Wasn't the war within weeks of finishing when Dresden was bombed?

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// Wasn't the war within weeks of finishing when Dresden was bombed? ///

We didn't know that at the time.

[lindapalmara]

So you could say it shortened the war then. Who would have known at the beginning of the year just when the war would end?

[sandyRoe]

At that stage of the war the Russians must have been practically in the suburbs of Berlin. There could have been no doubt among military strategists that it would be ended in a matter of weeks.

[lindapalmara]

Meanwhile don't forget that Hitler was still sending his V2 Rockets over to London daily. Talk about judgements after the event. No one can judge the actions of the time from our cosy armchairs today. The events of that (and any) war were atrocious and what saddens me is its still going on!

[jim360]

Some of the comments in the DM article illustrate a part, at least, of the problem. Dresden is compared to Coventry, London (and you could also include Hull, Bristol etc etc) as if Dresden were the only city we bombed heavily. But it wasn't. We also bombed Nuremburg, Koln, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, and every other major city. The results were devastating.

This is not to condemn one as worse than the other, although our bombing raids were certainly larger, more sustained, heavier, and more fatal than anything the Luftwaffe managed. Does that make it worse? Objectively, perhaps. The key differences are that a) we won, and history is generally favourable to the victors, and b) to start with, at least, there can be no doubt that the Germans were the main aggressors. As long as we were under direct threat, we probably had to cross the line in order to protect ourselves and win the War. Indeed, if the Germans had landed on our shores and invaded, we probably would have, and certainly should have, thrown gas at them for all I care.

Perhaps, with hindsight, things can be seen to have shifted some time between about 1941 and 1943, when we went from defending ourselves to being the aggressors, and that does make the civilian bombing later in the War more questionable. It's also a bit one-sided to portray only the Nazis as War criminals, although again this was almost inevitable once they lost and there is no doubt that many of them were guilty of War crimes.

I don't think it lessens our appreciation of the bravery of those who fought for us, not even of the Bomber crews, to question what they did. We should question it. We have to, in order in part to make sure that, indeed, it never happens again.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// I don't think it lessens our appreciation of the bravery of those who fought for us, not even of the Bomber crews, to question what they did. We should question it. We have to, in order in part to make sure that, indeed, it never happens again. ///

I hope you are not suggesting that our brave bomber crews were indeed war criminals?

As regarding "making sure in never happens again" it is and will continue to do so while ever there are conflicts or wars, and we need to destroy the enemy.

[jim360]

In general people who are successfully prosecuted for war crimes are senior officers. In this case, then, the "war criminals" on the allied side would be people such as Harris, rather than the individual bomber crews.