Wonderful feeling: After 75 years, Berliner recalls end of WW2 in Europe

[Pilotman]

36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It's not fashionable nowadays because we now know that Bomber Command purposely targeted civilians. For anyone who has read first hand accounts of children running in vain to save their lives, whilst on fire and burning alive, something Bomber Command inflicted on tens of thousands of women and children and the elderly, the strategic bombing campaign was a disgrace for humanity.

 

The aircrews in the UK were sacrificed in vain because historians have now demonstrated that strategic bombing was a major failure. 

 

"It was only near the end of the war, and the bombing of Dresden which killed approximately 25,000 people in a few hours, that there was any kind of outcry against Allied strategy, which incidentally had failed in any way to stem Germany’s production of armaments (there was a three-fold increase between 1941 and 1944)."

 

The esteemed Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith described allied bombing as ‘one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, miscalculation of the war'.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hitler-didn-t-start-indiscriminate-bombings-churchill-did-

 

Not only did strategic bombing fail in causing even a slight reduction in German arms production which tripled during the years of Bomber Command's campaign but they actually succeeded in increasing German support for the regime as they saw the barbarity of British bombing of women and children.

 

Another myth about world war is that it was Germany that started strategic bombing of women and children. It was not, it was Churchill, in desperation because he had almost no options.

 

"Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain].’

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hitler-didn-t-start-indiscriminate-bombings-churchill-did-

 

Strategic bombing was a major failure.

 

It was also a disgusting war crime based, explicitly on the killing of civilians.

 

A major stain on Britain's reputation.

 

 

 

 

All speculation, hindsight , opinion by none of those who fought that war and uninformed re writing of history.  It's interesting to note in all these back and forth arguments. that it was only the small size of the bombs that stopped the War ending a lot earlier than it did.  if Japan and the Atomic Bombs proved anything, it was that the strategy works, if the destructive power is such that it cannot be withstood.  If Atom bombs had been developed early enough to use in Europe, by either side,  WW2 would have ended in days. Thank goodness that was not the case, otherwise Germany would truly have been left a radio active wasteland. That is why we haven't had a world war since. Mutually Assured Destruction has brought a kind of long lasting peace, albeit that terrorism in all its forms, and a distorted view of religions, is the new threat to world harmony. In WW2, it was the size of the bombs that stopped it ending earlier, and therefore saving lives, and the fact that it was the only strategy possible at that time.  Now, with smart weapons, collateral damage can be minimised, but it is a fact of conflict and war, that civilians always die.  It is not the people who fight the war that need to be ashamed, it is war itself that is the unacceptable abomination. 

[Logosone]

55 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

All speculation, hindsight , opinion by none of those who fought that war and uninformed re writing of history.  

No, it's not "speculation" or "opinion". Historians have unearthed documented evidence that the British purposely intended to target civilians, women and children and the elderly, in the belief this would destroy morale:

 

"On 14 February 1942, the area bombing directive was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers."  Lest there be any confusion, Sir Charles Portal wrote to Air Chief Marshal Norman Bottomley on 15 February "...I suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built-up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories". Factories were no longer targets"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness

 

The strategy of strategic bombing was a comprehensive failure. It did not destroy morale. And Germany tripled its war production during the years of the bombing campaign.

 

Just like with the UK's strategic bombing where multiple false narratives are spun as a matter of course, such as that Germany started it when it was in fact the UK, or that the bombing was successful when it was in fact a failure and miscalculation, so with the US decision to use the atomic bomb the false narrative that it was necessary to end the war is routinely paraded.

 

The key thing to note about the use of the atomic bomb is that the US president lied at the time, and many, like you, simply repeat that lie:

 

"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

 

"...without use of the bomb, Japan might still have been made to surrender before the first American landing on the island of Kyushu, planned for November 1945. He notes that many American military leaders then and later felt that using atomic weapons against Japan was unnecessary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html

 

We now know of course that the Americans, embarassed, like the British, by the fact that it was actually the Russians that won the second world war, wanted a means to keep Russian demands in check. The use of the atomic bomb was that means.

 

The false narrative that it was needed to end WWII was perpetuated by Truman after the war to justify his barbaric decision that killed women, children and the elderly in the most cruel manner imaginable, much like UK bombing of civilians, however, historians have shown that Truman used wholly false arguments, inflated the projected casualty numbers. In other words, he lied to justify his killing of women and children.

 

Anyone who celebrates that is a wrong one.

[vogie]

45 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, it's not "speculation" or "opinion". Historians have unearthed documented evidence that the British purposely intended to target civilians, women and children and the elderly, in the belief this would destroy morale:

 

"On 14 February 1942, the area bombing directive was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers."  Lest there be any confusion, Sir Charles Portal wrote to Air Chief Marshal Norman Bottomley on 15 February "...I suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built-up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories". Factories were no longer targets"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness

 

The strategy of strategic bombing was a comprehensive failure. It did not destroy morale. And Germany tripled its war production during the years of the bombing campaign.

 

Just like with the UK's strategic bombing where multiple false narratives are spun as a matter of course, such as that Germany started it when it was in fact the UK, or that the bombing was successful when it was in fact a failure and miscalculation, so with the US decision to use the atomic bomb the false narrative that it was necessary to end the war is routinely paraded.

 

The key thing to note about the use of the atomic bomb is that the US president lied at the time, and many, like you, simply repeat that lie:

 

"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

 

"...without use of the bomb, Japan might still have been made to surrender before the first American landing on the island of Kyushu, planned for November 1945. He notes that many American military leaders then and later felt that using atomic weapons against Japan was unnecessary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html

 

We now know of course that the Americans, embarassed, like the British, by the fact that it was actually the Russians that won the second world war, wanted a means to keep Russian demands in check. The use of the atomic bomb was that means.

 

The false narrative that it was needed to end WWII was perpetuated by Truman after the war to justify his barbaric decision that killed women, children and the elderly in the most cruel manner imaginable, much like UK bombing of civilians, however, historians have shown that Truman used wholly false arguments, inflated the projected casualty numbers. In other words, he lied to justify his killing of women and children.

 

Anyone who celebrates that is a wrong one.

You'll be telling us next that the doodlebugs were infact smart bombs and were programmed to only hit military installations. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by vogie

[Sujo]

18 hours ago, Pilotman said:

rubbish, they don't have a choice.  Military life is not an exercise in democracy, you do as you are ordered.  Such an opinion as yours comes from uninformed individuals who have never served and who seem to think that you take a vote on what to do and what not to do, depending on how you feel that day.    

Utter rubbish, i never said they had a choice. And for your info i have served, i just dont spout it or use it as an excuse to indicate i know more.

 

So try reading my post again. I said dropping atom bombs or blatant bombing is not heroic. There is nothing heroic about that. Where did i say they had a choice.

 

 

[transam]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

No, it's not "speculation" or "opinion". Historians have unearthed documented evidence that the British purposely intended to target civilians, women and children and the elderly, in the belief this would destroy morale:

 

"On 14 February 1942, the area bombing directive was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers."  Lest there be any confusion, Sir Charles Portal wrote to Air Chief Marshal Norman Bottomley on 15 February "...I suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built-up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories". Factories were no longer targets"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness

 

The strategy of strategic bombing was a comprehensive failure. It did not destroy morale. And Germany tripled its war production during the years of the bombing campaign.

 

Just like with the UK's strategic bombing where multiple false narratives are spun as a matter of course, such as that Germany started it when it was in fact the UK, or that the bombing was successful when it was in fact a failure and miscalculation, so with the US decision to use the atomic bomb the false narrative that it was necessary to end the war is routinely paraded.

 

The key thing to note about the use of the atomic bomb is that the US president lied at the time, and many, like you, simply repeat that lie:

 

"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

 

"...without use of the bomb, Japan might still have been made to surrender before the first American landing on the island of Kyushu, planned for November 1945. He notes that many American military leaders then and later felt that using atomic weapons against Japan was unnecessary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html

 

We now know of course that the Americans, embarassed, like the British, by the fact that it was actually the Russians that won the second world war, wanted a means to keep Russian demands in check. The use of the atomic bomb was that means.

 

The false narrative that it was needed to end WWII was perpetuated by Truman after the war to justify his barbaric decision that killed women, children and the elderly in the most cruel manner imaginable, much like UK bombing of civilians, however, historians have shown that Truman used wholly false arguments, inflated the projected casualty numbers. In other words, he lied to justify his killing of women and children.

 

Anyone who celebrates that is a wrong one.

Hey, how come my mum lost two houses in the early part of the war....?

How long had the Germans been working on the V1 and V2 to flatten London....?

You should study more history, below is a start...

 

 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

You'll be telling us next that the doodlebugs were infact smart bombs and were programmed to only hit military installations. 

No, vogie, but I will tell you that it was not Germany that started the bombing of civilians, it was the British. 

 

"Writing in 1921, Wing Commander J A Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle."

"The Arab and Kurd now know", reported Squadron Leader Harris after several such raids, "what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape."

 

In his memoir of the crushing of the 1920 Iraqi uprising, Lieutenant-General Sir Aylmer L Haldane, quotes his own orders for the punishment of any Iraqi found in possession of weapons "with the utmost severity": "The village where he resides will be destroyed _ pressure will be brought on the inhabitants by cutting off water power the area being cleared of the necessaries of life". He added the warning: "Burning a village properly takes a long time, an hour or more according to size".

 

Punitive British bombing continued throughout the 1920s. An eyewitness account by Saleh 'Umar al Jabrim describes a raid in February 1923 on a village in southern Iraq, where bedouin were celebrating 12 weddings. After a visit from the RAF, a woman, two boys, a girl and four camels were left dead."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

So the British have a long history of bombing civilians with utmost cruelty in their colonies. When WWII came, with the BEF in Europe having suffered crushing defeat, Germany occupying Norway in a matter of days, and then unleashing a successful war against France the very same man who argued for poison gas to be used against civilians, Winston Churchill, came to power.

 

"Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

Hitler had previously pledged not to attack civilian targets in Britain, and so had Chamberlain, who had adhered to that policy honourably as indeed did Hitler. However, given the desperate military situation in 1940, Churchill was the one who then started to bomb German civilian targets, leading inevitably to the bombing of civilians in London. UK historians like Richard Overy acknowledge this:

 

"Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain]."

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hitler-didn-t-start-indiscriminate-bombings-churchill-did-

Edited May 10, 2020 by Logosone

[transam]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

No, vogie, but I will tell you that it was not Germany that started the bombing of civilians, it was the British. 

 

"Writing in 1921, Wing Commander J A Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle."

"The Arab and Kurd now know", reported Squadron Leader Harris after several such raids, "what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape."

 

In his memoir of the crushing of the 1920 Iraqi uprising, Lieutenant-General Sir Aylmer L Haldane, quotes his own orders for the punishment of any Iraqi found in possession of weapons "with the utmost severity": "The village where he resides will be destroyed _ pressure will be brought on the inhabitants by cutting off water power the area being cleared of the necessaries of life". He added the warning: "Burning a village properly takes a long time, an hour or more according to size".

 

Punitive British bombing continued throughout the 1920s. An eyewitness account by Saleh 'Umar al Jabrim describes a raid in February 1923 on a village in southern Iraq, where bedouin were celebrating 12 weddings. After a visit from the RAF, a woman, two boys, a girl and four camels were left dead."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

So the British have a long history of bombing civilians with utmost cruelty in their colonies. When WWII came, with the BEF in Europe having suffered crushing defeat, Germany occupying Norway in a matter of days, and then unleashing a successful war against France the very same man who argued for poison gas to be used against civilians, Winston Churchill, came to power.

 

"Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

Hitler had previously pledged not to attach civilian targets in Britain, and so had Chamberlain, who had adhered to that policy honourably. However, given the desperate military situation in 1940, Churchill was the one who then started to bomb German civilian targets, leading inevitably to the bombing of civilians in London. UK historians like Richard Overy acknowledge this:

 

"Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain]."

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hitler-didn-t-start-indiscriminate-bombings-churchill-did-

You sound like someone making excuses for a country that started a war that killed millions, plus many millions executed in camps..

 

Near 7,000 V1/V2 ROCKETS fell on the London area, now how long were these rockets in the making/design until they worked to be sent over to kill civilians....

They were planned......

 

[jvs]

I have visited this place a few times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre

Very impressive and very disturbing.

Most places where i have met German tourists they where always loud and overly present.

In Oradour they were very quiet.

War is dirty and not black and white but some things stand out.

 

[Pilotman]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Utter rubbish, i never said they had a choice. And for your info i have served, i just dont spout it or use it as an excuse to indicate i know more.

 

So try reading my post again. I said dropping atom bombs or blatant bombing is not heroic. There is nothing heroic about that. Where did i say they had a choice.

 

 

What the US pilots did over Hanoi in the Vietnam War was certainly brave and heroic, as was what my Father and his friends did over Germany in WW2 and indeed what the German Night Fighter aircrews did at the same time.  If you served, which by your attitude and views I very much doubt, you would know the difference between the execution of war, by those who have to fight it and their undoubted heroism, often shown in conflict, and those who just pontificate about it from their arm chairs. 

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, vogie, but I will tell you that it was not Germany that started the bombing of civilians, it was the British. 

 

"Writing in 1921, Wing Commander J A Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle."

"The Arab and Kurd now know", reported Squadron Leader Harris after several such raids, "what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape."

 

In his memoir of the crushing of the 1920 Iraqi uprising, Lieutenant-General Sir Aylmer L Haldane, quotes his own orders for the punishment of any Iraqi found in possession of weapons "with the utmost severity": "The village where he resides will be destroyed _ pressure will be brought on the inhabitants by cutting off water power the area being cleared of the necessaries of life". He added the warning: "Burning a village properly takes a long time, an hour or more according to size".

 

Punitive British bombing continued throughout the 1920s. An eyewitness account by Saleh 'Umar al Jabrim describes a raid in February 1923 on a village in southern Iraq, where bedouin were celebrating 12 weddings. After a visit from the RAF, a woman, two boys, a girl and four camels were left dead."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

So the British have a long history of bombing civilians with utmost cruelty in their colonies. When WWII came, with the BEF in Europe having suffered crushing defeat, Germany occupying Norway in a matter of days, and then unleashing a successful war against France the very same man who argued for poison gas to be used against civilians, Winston Churchill, came to power.

 

"Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

 

Hitler had previously pledged not to attach civilian targets in Britain, and so had Chamberlain, who had adhered to that policy honourably. However, given the desperate military situation in 1940, Churchill was the one who then started to bomb German civilian targets, leading inevitably to the bombing of civilians in London. UK historians like Richard Overy acknowledge this:

 

"Up until Churchill’s appointment as prime minister both Germany and Britain had stuck to a pledge not to attack targets in each other’s cities where civilians were at risk. Overy dismisses the long-held belief ‘firmly rooted in the British public mind’ that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill’s, ‘because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain]."

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hitler-didn-t-start-indiscriminate-bombings-churchill-did-

You can berate Britain as much as you like and you seem to have a habit of doing this, but fine words butter no parsnips, the Germans were bombing Poland before Britain had even declared war on them.

Whether one side was worse than the other is moot, both sides were doing it, that's how wars were fought, only 20 years earlier we were using horses to pull our field guns and dropping bombs from bi-planes by hand. We were all learning, unfortunately we didn't have a Haynes Manual on how to fight a modern war.

Let us hope that there are no more wars, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 hours ago, Logosone said:

No, it's not "speculation" or "opinion". Historians have unearthed documented evidence that the British purposely intended to target civilians, women and children and the elderly, in the belief this would destroy morale:

 

"On 14 February 1942, the area bombing directive was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers."  Lest there be any confusion, Sir Charles Portal wrote to Air Chief Marshal Norman Bottomley on 15 February "...I suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built-up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories". Factories were no longer targets"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness

 

The strategy of strategic bombing was a comprehensive failure. It did not destroy morale. And Germany tripled its war production during the years of the bombing campaign.

 

Just like with the UK's strategic bombing where multiple false narratives are spun as a matter of course, such as that Germany started it when it was in fact the UK, or that the bombing was successful when it was in fact a failure and miscalculation, so with the US decision to use the atomic bomb the false narrative that it was necessary to end the war is routinely paraded.

 

The key thing to note about the use of the atomic bomb is that the US president lied at the time, and many, like you, simply repeat that lie:

 

"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

 

"...without use of the bomb, Japan might still have been made to surrender before the first American landing on the island of Kyushu, planned for November 1945. He notes that many American military leaders then and later felt that using atomic weapons against Japan was unnecessary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html

 

We now know of course that the Americans, embarassed, like the British, by the fact that it was actually the Russians that won the second world war, wanted a means to keep Russian demands in check. The use of the atomic bomb was that means.

 

The false narrative that it was needed to end WWII was perpetuated by Truman after the war to justify his barbaric decision that killed women, children and the elderly in the most cruel manner imaginable, much like UK bombing of civilians, however, historians have shown that Truman used wholly false arguments, inflated the projected casualty numbers. In other words, he lied to justify his killing of women and children.

 

Anyone who celebrates that is a wrong one.

You seem to miss some very important points. The carpet bombing of Germany had a huge impact on the German war effort. Without the bombs they may have increased production 5 or 10 fold, greatly prolongs the war.

The A-bomb was used in Japan as a show of American power and as a deterrent to the Russians. As a result atomic weapons have never since been used in a conflict. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by ExpatOilWorker

[nausea]

I heard all the German girls got raped by Russians, why anyone would celebrate this is beyond me. The UK got off lightly in comparison, still, everyone knew someone who had died, not really a matter for celebration. My grandmother kept stores of soap in her cupboard for years (rationing and all that), like a PTSD thing, couldn't let go.

[Logosone]

18 hours ago, Pilotman said:

What the US pilots did over Hanoi in the Vietnam War was certainly brave and heroic, as was what my Father and his friends did over Germany in WW2 and indeed what the German Night Fighter aircrews did at the same time.  

Was your father involved in the bombing of the Cap Arcona?

 

"In May 1945 she was heavily laden with prisoners from Nazi concentration camps when the Royal Air Force (the pilots not knowing of the nature of her passengers) bombed her, killing about 5,000 people, mostly former concentration camp inmates; with more than 2,000 further casualties in the sinkings of the accompanying vessels of the prison fleet, Deutschland and Thielbek. This was one of the largest single-incident maritime losses of life in the Second World War."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona

 

It was of course the civilians, women and children, and the elderly who knew the reality of carpet bombing, who lived through it, not the pilots. 

 

In fact some of those who lived through it were hardened British soldiers who had fought in many campaigns for Britain but were unfortunate to be kept as prisoners of war in Dresden when the British carpet bombed that virtually undefended city. Victor Gregg was one such British soldier.

 

He described what he saw with his own eyes:

 

"As the incendiaries fell, the phosphorus clung to the bodies of those below, turning them into human torches. The screaming of those who were being burned alive was added to the cries of those not yet hit." 

 

"My account of this tragedy, Dresden: A Survivor's Story, was published on the day of the anniversary this week. I gave a number of interviews around the publication, in which I insisted that the affair was a war crime at the highest level, a stain upon the name Englishman that only an apology made in full public view would suffice to obliterate."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/bombing-dresden-war-crime

 

Most of the human torches wandering over bubbling asphalt, liquid and alive with heat, were small children. And women.

 

Victor Gregg, an experienced British solder of WWII and a prisoner of war, was he also an arm chair critic of the bombing? No, he wasn't was he? He fought at Arnhem and many British battles, but all his life he was called a "Nazi Supporter" because having seen what the RAF did in Dresden with his own eyes he never ceased to call it a "war crime" and evil.

 

Because that's of course what it was, the British purposely aimed to kill civilians, women and children, and they knew they were doing so.

 

Even British soldiers who fought in WWII were repulsed by it.

 

Of course then we saw children burned alive again by US bombing in Vietnam and still we have fools who call such cowardly attacks on civilians "heroic". Disgraceful.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Logosone

[pineapple01]

Does anyone remember playing in the bombed out Buildings in 46. There was always one kid who shouted Ive Found A Head or a Bomb and we ran like hell.Makes me sad hearing opinions from those whoes only danger in life has been a Visa Run. I ventured around bombed German Towns at 14/15 ish ,did i feel sympathy NO in fact though They Missed that one damit.

[Logosone]

18 hours ago, vogie said:

You can berate Britain as much as you like and you seem to have a habit of doing this, but fine words butter no parsnips, the Germans were bombing Poland before Britain had even declared war on them.

Whether one side was worse than the other is moot, both sides were doing it, that's how wars were fought, only 20 years earlier we were using horses to pull our field guns and dropping bombs from bi-planes by hand. We were all learning, unfortunately we didn't have a Haynes Manual on how to fight a modern war.

Let us hope that there are no more wars, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

 

And as you can see from the quotes provided above, the British were bombing civilians in Iraq in the 1920s, before WWII ever happened. The RAF precursors developed the doctrine of carpet bombing of civilians long before 1939.

 

Indeed, both sides committed terrible crimes. However, why is this article trying to pretend that the allied invasion was somehow a blessed event for Germans? It wasn't. After years of suffering the bombing of civilians, the horror only truly began when the allied invasions started, with mass murders and rapes in Germany by American, Russian and British soldiers. Two million Germans were killed in the largest ethnic cleansing and genocide the world has ever seen, as twelve million Germans were ethnically cleansed and forced to leave their homelands, all after 1945.

 

To try and paper over that by quoting relief that war was over is to ignore the the horrific crimes committed by the Allies during and after WWII.

 

Yes, both sides committed crimes during WWII, but Britain got off very lightly. Its theft and rape of German civilians, the killing of women and children in cowardly bombings, is not discussed in Germany or in Britain. There is no holiday in Germany paying tribute to the 7 million Germans who died as a result of WWII.

 

British soldiers who tell the true story of atrocities they saw with their own eyes, caused by the RAF, are silenced, written out of history and mostly ignored. Who in Britain has ever heard of Victor Gregg?

 

Seems to me that only one side is always pilloried for its crimes, the other got away with glorifying them.

[Logosone]

14 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

You seem to miss some very important points. The carpet bombing of Germany had a huge impact on the German war effort. Without the bombs they may have increased production 5 or 10 fold, greatly prolongs the war.

The A-bomb was used in Japan as a show of American power and as a deterrent to the Russians. As a result atomic weapons have never since been used in a conflict. 

No actually the carpet bombing did not have a "huge" impact on the German effort. Its aim was to destroy the moral of the civilian population and to reduce Germany's capacity to produce arms. In fact Germany tripled its war production overall during the years of the bombing campaign. Rather than break German morale the attitude of Germans hardened against the allies as they saw the barbarity of how the Allies burned alive their women and children first hand.

 

What damage was done was very quickly repaired, so despite the odd successes particularly in damaging oil production, overall the British bombing campaign was a spectacular failure as Germany's war production tripled in size during the years of the bombing.

 

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith called the Allied carpet bombing the "biggest miscalculation of the war".

 

In the end it was the Russians that defeated the Wehrmacht, the UK's bombings in terms of war effort were just minor annoyances. However they did have a huge impact on civilians.

 

[pineapple01]

So an innocent party is attacked and the victims going to bother what he does to end it. Grow up Logo.!.

[pineapple01]

[pineapple01]

[Logosone]

18 hours ago, transam said:

You sound like someone making excuses for a country that started a war that killed millions, plus many millions executed in camps..

 

Near 7,000 V1/V2 ROCKETS fell on the London area, now how long were these rockets in the making/design until they worked to be sent over to kill civilians....

They were planned......

 

I'm not one to make excuses for anything, especially not WWII since I was born decades after it happened. I'm just fed up with the lies told about WWII, as if the allied invasion was a blessing with happy cake for Germans. It was anything but, despite the relief that the war was over much of the worst was still to come, with two and half million German civilians about to be murdered and twelve million to be ethnically cleansed. All in sight of the British who condoned it and contributed to it.

 

You talk about "camps". Some 56,000 people died in Buchenwald concentration camp during the entire duration of the war. The allies killed 100,000 people in one single day at Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

 

The V1 rockets were  not called "Vergeltung" ie "Vengeance" for nothing. Again, it is accepted by UK historians that the British started the bombing of civilians in the British-German conflict.

 

Why would I apologise when you started the bombing of civilians and did much worse?

 

Besides, we wanted to invade Poland and re-incorporate the German territories the Poles had stolen from Germany after WW1, with British assistance. Britain then declared war on us. You guys made it into a world war, something that was never wanted by Germany, until the mistake was made to invade Russia, precisely to force the UK to negotiate, something Germany offered many times to Britain, to end the war.

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

And as you can see from the quotes provided above, the British were bombing civilians in Iraq in the 1920s, before WWII ever happened. The RAF precursors developed the doctrine of carpet bombing of civilians long before 1939.

 

Indeed, both sides committed terrible crimes. However, why is this article trying to pretend that the allied invasion was somehow a blessed event for Germans? It wasn't. After years of suffering the bombing of civilians, the horror only truly began when the allied invasions started, with mass murders and rapes in Germany by American, Russian and British soldiers. Two million Germans were killed in the largest ethnic cleansing and genocide the world has ever seen, as twelve million Germans were ethnically cleansed and forced to leave their homelands, all after 1945.

 

To try and paper over that by quoting relief that war was over is to ignore the the horrific crimes committed by the Allies during and after WWII.

 

Yes, both sides committed crimes during WWII, but Britain got off very lightly. Its theft and rape of German civilians, the killing of women and children in cowardly bombings, is not discussed in Germany or in Britain. There is no holiday in Germany paying tribute to the 7 million Germans who died as a result of WWII.

 

British soldiers who tell the true story of atrocities they saw with their own eyes, caused by the RAF, are silenced, written out of history and mostly ignored. Who in Britain has ever heard of Victor Gregg?

 

Seems to me that only one side is always pilloried for its crimes, the other got away with glorifying them.

To be honest I am not interested in your cherry picked denigration of the UK, I think you could be less disingenuous if you actually told both sides of the story instead of trying to make Britain the scape goat here, you are on to a loser. The Germans killed more civilians than anyone, try to keep things in perspective.

[transam]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I'm not one to make excuses for anything, especially not WWII since I was born decades after it happened. I'm just fed up with the lies told about WWII, as if the allied invasion was a blessing with happy cake for Germans. It was anything but, despite the relief that the war was over much of the worst was still to come, with two and half million German civilians about to be murdered and twelve million to be ethnically cleansed. All in sight of the British who condoned it and contributed to it.

 

You talk about "camps". Some 56,000 people died in Buchenwald concentration camp during the entire duration of the war. The allies killed 100,000 people in one single day at Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchenwald_concentration_camp

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

 

The V1 rockets were  not called "Vergeltung" ie "Vengeance" for nothing. Again, it is accepted by UK historians that the British started the bombing of civilians in the British-German conflict.

 

Why would I apologise when you started the bombing of civilians and did much worse?

 

Besides, we wanted to invade Poland and re-incorporate the German territories the Poles had stolen from Germany after WW1, with British assistance. Britain then declared war on us. You guys made it into a world war, something that was never wanted by Germany, until the mistake was made to invade Russia, precisely to force the UK to negotiate, something Germany offered many times to Britain, to end the war.

Again, you are making excuses for the Axis.....You forgot about the German killing spree listed below.......

 

Jews...6,000,000

Soviets...7,000,000...

Polish...1,800,000...

Serbs...312,000...

Folk with disabilities...250,000...

Gypsies...250,000...

Jehovah Witness...1,900...

Criminals...70,000...

The list goes on, now you start from the top of the list and let me know your thoughts....

 

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

[Logosone]

57 minutes ago, vogie said:

To be honest I am not interested in your cherry picked denigration of the UK, I think you could be less disingenuous if you actually told both sides of the story instead of trying to make Britain the scape goat here, you are on to a loser. The Germans killed more civilians than anyone, try to keep things in perspective.

Of course you're not interested to know that the RAF pioneers formulated their policy of bombing civilians in the 1920s in Iraq and other British colonies. 

 

Nor are you interested that British historians accept that it was Britain that started the bombing of civilians in the German-British conflict.

 

How come, I thought you want both sides of the story told?

 

The fact is that the history of WWII is always a one-sided affair, told from the allied perspective. The German side of the story, the narrative of 7 million Germans that died hardly comes up in this narrative. Instead we get sold this propaganda how the Allied invasion was a blessing, when in fact it unleashed some of the worst forms of inhumanity the world has seen.

 

So there is a need for balancing, as we see it with this very one-sided article yet again. Not to mention the idiotic glorification of killing women and children with carpet bombing we have seen here by some.

 

I am not denigrating Britain at all, nor am I scapegoating Britain. Those that ordered and committed the murder of civilians in Germany in no way represent Britain as a whole, just as those Germans who murdered civilians in the war in no way represent Germany.

 

However, this narrative needs balance, it is always told from one side. Britain played its part in unleashing the second world war, and it certainly played its part in contributing to the civilian casualties in WWII of which Germany had many thanks to Britain.   

 

Germany has acknowledged and apologised for its mistakes. Britain never has. Nor has the USA. Nor has Russia. Though all of them killed civilians in WWII on a grand scale.

 

In fact most of Britain's war effort was spent on bombing civilians, they didn't dare to fight in Europe again until 1944, in a meaningful way anyway, by which time Russia had decided the war after years of fighting.

 

So we shouldn't even pretend it was the Allies that liberated anyone, at most it was the Russians. Though the supposed "liberation" was really mass rape, pillaging, theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The misrepresentations of this article not withstanding.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

41 minutes ago, transam said:

Again, you are making excuses for the Axis.....You forgot about the German killing spree listed below.......

 

Not at all, very regrettable what happened. Of course 100,000 Gemans were arrested and tried for the crimes committed. Germany continues to this day to prosecute 95 year old people for things done in the 1940s. Not to mention countless apologies and billions paid in reparations.

 

So there is nothing to make excuses for. But Britain has no excuse for not prosecuting those who are known to have committed war crimes in Germany by burning alive women and children.

 

Even hardened British soldiers who served for Britain and fought in WWII, after seeing what happened in Dresden, say clearly it was evil and a war crime.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/bombing-dresden-war-crime

 

However Britain does not arrest and put its war criminals on trial. Britain paid no reparations. Okay you didn't steal everything maybe, after countless German castles having been looted by the British you returned Volkswagen rather than dismantle it and ship it to Britain. A few other things were returned. However, on the whole there have been no real reparations for all the theft, looting, destruction and killing of civilians. Priceless and irretrievable cultural artefacts, works of art and such were destroyed by the allies in the indiscriminate bombing, yet the Allies portray themselves as the saviours of art and culture.

 

Okay, the Archbishop of Canterbury apologised for the bombing of Dresden. But boy did he get condemned for that in Britain.

 

Anyway, how you handle your war crimes is your problem. But don't think Germans don't know what you did. And even if there was relief the war ended, we all know what happened after when the Allies invaded Germany and their allies ethnically cleansed 12 million Germans.

[pineapple01]

Best leave him to his delusional Do You believe in God posts.

[vogie]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course you're not interested to know that the RAF pioneers formulated their policy of bombing civilians in the 1920s in Iraq and other British colonies. 

 

Nor are you interested that British historians accept that it was Britain that started the bombing of civilians in the German-British conflict.

 

How come, I thought you want both sides of the story told?

 

The fact is that the history of WWII is always a one-sided affair, told from the allied perspective. The German side of the story, the narrative of 7 million Germans that died hardly comes up in this narrative. Instead we get sold this propaganda how the Allied invasion was a blessing, when in fact it unleashed some of the worst forms of inhumanity the world has seen.

 

So there is a need for balancing, as we see it with this very one-sided article yet again. Not to mention the idiotic glorification of killing women and children with carpet bombing we have seen here by some.

 

I am not denigrating Britain at all, nor am I scapegoating Britain. Those that ordered and committed the murder of civilians in Germany in no way represent Britain as a whole, just as those Germans who murdered civilians in the war in no way represent Germany.

 

However, this narrative needs balance, it is always told from one side. Britain played its part in unleashing the second world war, and it certainly played its part in contributing to the civilian casualties in WWII of which Germany had many thanks to Britain.   

 

Germany has acknowledged and apologised for its mistakes. Britain never has. Nor has the USA. Nor has Russia. Though all of them killed civilians in WWII on a grand scale.

 

In fact most of Britain's war effort was spent on bombing civilians, they didn't dare to fight in Europe again until 1944, in a meaningful way anyway, by which time Russia had decided the war after years of fighting.

 

So we shouldn't even pretend it was the Allies that liberated anyone, at most it was the Russians. Though the supposed "liberation" was really mass rape, pillaging, theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The misrepresentations of this article not withstanding.

 

 

 

 

If you are after sympathy from me you are going to be sorely dissapointed. If you could read what you are writing you should be totally embarrassed, it sounds like two kids in the playground, 'you started it, no I didn't you started' it doesn't matter who started it the allies finished it. 

When you have to go back over a hundred years to make a point, you have lost the argument, this topic is about WW2. You have tried to justify the Germans bombing and invading Poland, was that part of Hitlers 'lebensraum' did it also include France, Belgium, Holland, North Africa and his attempt to steal Russias oil fields, how can you justify this, you cannot. 

The amount of innocent folk that the German Nazis murdered in the most atrocious ways known to mankind hopefully will never be forgotten, nor should it. Your deflections will always be ignored, it is totally pitifull to even try to pass the book in regards to Germanys crimes.

Edited May 11, 2020 by vogie

[pineapple01]

Next he will blame the West for allowing the thick Iranians to have a Warship that just destroyed its own Warship.

[transam]

33 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Not at all, very regrettable what happened. Of course 100,000 Gemans were arrested and tried for the crimes committed. Germany continues to this day to prosecute 95 year old people for things done in the 1940s. Not to mention countless apologies and billions paid in reparations.

 

So there is nothing to make excuses for. But Britain has no excuse for not prosecuting those who are known to have committed war crimes in Germany by burning alive women and children.

 

Even hardened British soldiers who served for Britain and fought in WWII, after seeing what happened in Dresden, say clearly it was evil and a war crime.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/bombing-dresden-war-crime

 

However Britain does not arrest and put its war criminals on trial. Britain paid no reparations. Okay you didn't steal everything maybe, after countless German castles having been looted by the British you returned Volkswagen rather than dismantle it and ship it to Britain. A few other things were returned. However, on the whole there have been no real reparations for all the theft, looting, destruction and killing of civilians. Priceless and irretrievable cultural artefacts, works of art and such were destroyed by the allies in the indiscriminate bombing, yet the Allies portray themselves as the saviours of art and culture.

 

Okay, the Archbishop of Canterbury apologised for the bombing of Dresden. But boy did he get condemned for that in Britain.

 

Anyway, how you handle your war crimes is your problem. But don't think Germans don't know what you did. And even if there was relief the war ended, we all know what happened after when the Allies invaded Germany and their allies ethnically cleansed 12 million Germans.

What on earth are you on about.......????...........

You have NO answers, you cut out the figures in my post because you have no answers..

 

You should go sit in a corner......Unbelievable one sided tosh, dismissing the German genocide of MILLIONS.......????

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

If you are after sympathy from me you are going to be sorely dissapointed. If you could read what you are writing you should be totally embarrassed, it sounds like two kids in the playground, 'you started it, no I didn't you started' it doesn't matter who started it the allies finished it. 

When you have to go back over a hundred years to make a point, you have lost the argument, this topic is about WW2. You have tried to justify the Germans bombing and invading Poland, was that part of Hitlers 'lebensraum' did it also include France, Belgium, Holland, North Africa and his attempt to steal Russias oil fields, how can you justify this, you cannot. 

The amount of innocent folk that the German Nazis murdered in the most atrocious ways known to mankind hopefully will never be forgotten, nor should it. Your deflections will always be ignored, it is totally pitifull to even try to pass the book in regards to Germanys crimes.

You mean the Russians finished it. The Americans and British sat on the sidelines for years waiting until Russia decided the war, then swooped in quickly to avoid being embarassed as Russia invades Germany. So the British and Americans at least had the chance to pretend they actually did some fighting. As opposed to bombing women and children cowardly from the air.

 

Of course you would not have sympathy for women and children burned alive, why would you? Only German civilians after all. But when two V1s hit the buildings of mother the outcry is great.

 

There is nothing to justify with Germany's invasion of Poland and the bombing of Warsaw which was a perfectly legitimate bombing of military defensive positions. Totally different to a strategy of bombing civilians, which the RAF decided to pursue in its impotence. Besides Poland had incorporated German territories after WW1 and despite repeated attempts to return those lands the Poles were intransigent, relying of course on the worthless British and French guarantees.

 

France declared war on Germany. Why would Germany have to justify occupying and defeating a country which declared war on it? Besides the occupation of France was nowhere near as inhumane as what Germans endured after 1945. Despite the "Wonderful feelings".

 

Of course things went too far, and a small number of German criminals committed crimes, but all of them were punished. Not so the British war criminals.

 

That's not ignored, plenty of British historians like Richard Overy are clear that the British started the bombing of civilians.

 

But yah, Germany should not have invaded Russia, no justification for that.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, transam said:

What on earth are you on about.......????...........

You have NO answers, you cut out the figures in my post because you have no answers..

 

You should go sit in a corner......Unbelievable one sided tosh, dismissing the German genocide of MILLIONS.......????

I've already given you the answer. The small number of Germans responsible for crimes were punished. Germany is still pursuing war criminals. Paying reparations.

 

Britain's war criminals are glorified. No punishment. No apologies. No reparations.

 

A grave injustice.