Thedelldays Posted 12 December, 2008 Share Posted 12 December, 2008 been watching a bit of this... jesus, did not realise who much we phucked up germany with constant bombing during WW2.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 12 December, 2008 Share Posted 12 December, 2008 I did. We did totally f*ck them, but to be honest, c'est la vie. We didn't start mass bombing against civilians, so we were only responsding in kind. I've been to Dresden. The place must've been simply GONE. I'm not really saying it was OK, but it was the state of play and the rules of engagement weren't written by us in that case. It is a deplorable tactic, generally speaking, mind you. And it is interesting how much we gloss over that kind of thing. It happens quite a lot. Most countries, not just us, are quite loath to cover their own darker acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 I think it underlies the old saying that history is written by the victors. The fact that the Nazis started the war and were probably the most evil regime in modern times, has helped obscure the sheer brutality dished out by the RAF in the closing months of the war. How much it helped quicken the end of the war is debateable. I guess a similar example would be the ethnic clensing wrought on the Germans in Prussia by the Russians. The Germans lost a massive amount of their original territory not to mention hundreds of thousands dead or misplaced. Not that well known though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 Indeed. There's a whole lot of stuff wiped from the history books, or removed from various curriculums, that would need including if history as learned was a balanced thing. Some say the end justifies the means, and in some cases this is true - in some ways, the dropping of the atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki were life savers. I do believe what they say about the loss of life, at the very least on that day, was less than had the Pacific forces been forced to take the Japanese mainland etc. Also, perhaps it was better that the power was used then, rather than later, when bigger bombs and different, even more profound tensions, existed. On the other hand, we don't put a lot of emphasis on studying the aftermath and so on, ror the arms races, various tests and so on. I mean, people know about it now, but most people don't know the extent, the risking of civilian exposure, etc etc, because for many nation states, full reality doesn't always paint in a good light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 been watching a bit of this... jesus, did not realise who much we phucked up germany with constant bombing during WW2.... Yeah we did. Like everyone else I don't know the full extent or the full realisation of it. But in order to defeat the evil of Germany, this country and its allies had to temporarily match that evil. Being born in 1958, I'm lucky enough not to have experienced anything of WWII, although even when I was a child, there were plenty of overtones. But 4 of my immediate family are still around to tell of what it was like to be bombed. My older relatives tell me how loud the bombs were, and how the ground would shake. How one of them was once riding a bicycle in the pitch black of a winter's evening, and rode right into a huge bomb crater on Winchester Road. The trails in the sky as fighter aircraft would be caught up in dogfights, and my eldest brother would be entranced by them. Two of my relatives were born in 1940 and 1942. The older relative [another brother] has explained how when the air raids stopped, he asked Mum, why it was so quiet. And Mum said, it's because the War is over. And my brother was so confused because he had never known anything else. And peacetime bored him for a while. This is the innocent human element of War, and it was much the same for innocents on the other side. There are no winners, only losers. It's just that some lose less heavily than others. Unfortunately, we can't just stand aside and allow evil to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 One truth of the aftermath of WWII is that Great Britain, as a country, was completely and utterly dead on its feet. Financially, Britain was practically bankrupt. While money and resources were ploughed into Germany, after the war, GB was meant to stand up for itself, even though it had kept up the resistance, practically alone until 1942, and had been unprepared for that fight, at the time, while Germany had been massing its strength. In the years after the war, the Lend-Lease Agreement payments, which had been set up between the USA and its allies, kicked in after 1950. Fifty or so years of payments ensued, and the UK paid every last cent and interest that the US demanded back. It wasn't until just after the millennium that the debt was paid off. In effect, GB has suffered the effects of WWII long after it has been just a memory for other countries. All countries can certainly lose a war, but some can win a peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 Yeah, those loans were harsh! I remember us finally paying them off at the time. It was a lot of money..! It's an odd one, because whilst there was recession post-war, the end of it marked a new age in production and engineering - so many advances were made in the war in terms of mass production, workforce management, etc etc, and so many efficient systems put in place for the war effort, that it actually benefitted some. The US was not a major economic power in relative terms, relative to its size, until after it had discovered its true potential for industrial might during the war. The same applied to the USSR, although they manifested that in different ways, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 been watching a bit of this... jesus, did not realise who much we phucked up germany with constant bombing during WW2.... What goes around comes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2008 What goes around comes around. of course...watching that it was a retaliation to the blitz and i guess germany under-estimated us.... after all, they took continental europe with ease and little resistance.....then they took on the UK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 of course...watching that it was a retaliation to the blitz and i guess germany under-estimated us.... after all, they took continental europe with ease and little resistance.....then they took on the UK... Oh dear. No one but TDD could say such a thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 TDD, Hitler actually saw us as natural allies - this kept us out of things for a time, and he genuinely did not want to just crush us as he had with some other countries. Naturally, our status as an island made it a completely different proposition as well. If he under-estimated anything in regards to us, it was us keeping our word to defend Poland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2008 TDD, Hitler actually saw us as natural allies - this kept us out of things for a time, and he genuinely did not want to just crush us as he had with some other countries. Naturally, our status as an island made it a completely different proposition as well. If he under-estimated anything in regards to us, it was us keeping our word to defend Poland. i know...he wanted to leave us alone as he knew bringing the UK and the empire into the war was a very dangerous and bad idea...he wanted us to leave him to europe in return he would not get involved in our interests over seas.....I would say he did under estimate us...when the blitz happened he assumed (and it is documented) that it would crush us into submission..break the will of the people..not just in london but all over and as a result, we as a people may have pushed the government to make a deal with the nazis.. the blitz did not have that effect on the masses....it brought us closer together and made us even more determind to get revenge.... so in a way...he certainly did under-estimate the british people if not the british military... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 I'm not sure it was just us, though. I think he underestimated the impact mass bombing of civilians would have, period. I tink most populations resist oppression and club together, as we did. He did consider us a dangerous adversary, certainly - but above all, he didn't want to fight us because he saw us as aryans, as a country that should be working with Germany, not against - even as a partner, not a subordinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2008 I'm not sure it was just us, though. I think he underestimated the impact mass bombing of civilians would have, period. I tink most populations resist oppression and club together, as we did. He did consider us a dangerous adversary, certainly - but above all, he didn't want to fight us because he saw us as aryans, as a country that should be working with Germany, not against - even as a partner, not a subordinate. i think would agree..he was a brilliant speaker who (somehow) inspired a nation into madness... worlds original nutjob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 He was a fine orator, for sure. But most people don't know he spent many hours practising in front of a mirror, worked hard at it, from years before even. And he inspired much of a nation to madness, but it's fair to say he only came to power as a result of squabbling between other parties, weak leadership, etc. he never had a majority vote, not by a long shot, and many only voted for him because he was perceived as strong etc, not because of agreement with his more extreme policies and ideas. Even by the height of the war, most Germans, certainly those old enough to have avoided youth propaganda, supported him only by definition, and fought for Germany rather than nazism, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 The Blitz of London was nothing more than 'ego' thing for Hitler and had no tactical reasoning behind it. In fact he was advised against it at the time as it would jeoparadise the current mission of destroying the RAF in preparation of the Invasion of Britain Having made a vow that "no bombs would ever fall on Berlin", he was made to look stupid after Churchill ordered the successful retaliatory air strike on Berlin after a lone lost German Bomber dropped its payload on London, properly in error and against standing orders Hitler was enraged at being made to look a fool and made bombing London the main focus of his war on Britain....A fantastic tactical move from Britain's point of view as it gave the RAF the breathing space they needed to regroup and repair their battered airfields and were then able to respond with such force it forced Hitler to call off his invasion plans Basically one error from one German Bomber crew not only changed the whole course of the war but also changed a major way in the way it was to be fought As for "brilliant speaker, inspiring a Nation to madness".....kinda reminds me of someone soon to take office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 Massive lol at george comparing obama to hitler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 Indeed. Polar. Opposites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 December, 2008 Share Posted 13 December, 2008 of course...watching that it was a retaliation to the blitz and i guess germany under-estimated us.... after all, they took continental europe with ease and little resistance.....then they took on the UK... To be fair, the English Channel played its part (having stopped Napolean and other previous invaders) - this little stretch of water bought us time to build and strengthen, because in 1939-1940 we were not well prepared - without the channel, the blitzkrieg tactics that swept most of western Europe probably would have worked against us. As it was, with the stength of the Royal Navy and the fact there was water between us and them, made it almost impossible to walk in and take the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 15 December, 2008 Share Posted 15 December, 2008 Indeed. Polar. Opposites. Thats your "World is flat" thinking again A lot of people think of politics as a straight line with a Left, Right and Centre and the further the the Left or Right you go the further apart they become, hence your "Polar Opposites" comment. Politics is in fact a circle. If you travel far enough Left and/or Right from the starting point (the centre) you'll eventually meet the other extreme Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin and all the other political tyrants had differing base ideals but the end result was still the same, just a different name And yes there's enough i've seen about 'Chairman O' to make me believe he has the potential to join that list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoswellSaint Posted 15 December, 2008 Share Posted 15 December, 2008 Thats your "World is flat" thinking again A lot of people think of politics as a straight line with a Left, Right and Centre and the further the the Left or Right you go the further apart they become, hence your "Polar Opposites" comment. Politics is in fact a circle. If you travel far enough Left and/or Right from the starting point (the centre) you'll eventually meet the other extreme Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin and all the other political tyrants had differing base ideals but the end result was still the same, just a different name And yes there's enough i've seen about 'Chairman O' to make me believe he has the potential to join that list Unfriggingbelieveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 16 December, 2008 Share Posted 16 December, 2008 Thats your "World is flat" thinking again A lot of people think of politics as a straight line with a Left, Right and Centre and the further the the Left or Right you go the further apart they become, hence your "Polar Opposites" comment. Politics is in fact a circle. If you travel far enough Left and/or Right from the starting point (the centre) you'll eventually meet the other extreme Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin and all the other political tyrants had differing base ideals but the end result was still the same, just a different name And yes there's enough i've seen about 'Chairman O' to make me believe he has the potential to join that list You're so funny. Hitler and Obama are polar opposites precisely because Obama is a centre-ist politician. As for Obama being the next genocidal lunatic dictator lol lol lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now