German irritation over British bomber memorial

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

The memorial is about the men who didn't return flying these missions because they where ordered to, it is not to memorate the commanders that gave them these orders. So I fail to see why the Germans are irritated by this.

HunterICX

Originally Posted by danlisa

Foremost, Bomber Command has never received the appropriate recognition for their actions and sacrifices in WWII. So I welcome the memorial.

Does Germany not have a similar memorial for airmen lost when they were on bombing runs over London, Coventry etc?? TBH, I'm not even sure this would be commemorated in Germany, given that they wish to expunge all Nazi history, however, not all airmen were given to those political views.

Sound like complaining for complainings sake.

I don't think that Bombing Raids should be classed as criminal during wartime activities in WWII. The inherent inaccuracy of the technology determined the result of mass 'civilian' casualties/fatalities. However, should the same happen today, given the accuracy of our weapons, then yes, it's criminal.

QFT both of you

[Herr-Berbunch]

Criminal - no. Shocking - yes. Even Churchill said Dresden was going to far.

Whilst they were mostly civillians killed in those raids, they undoubtedly had friends and family in uniform, they worked towards the war effort whether they wanted to or not, and whether it was working in a munitions factory, knitting sweaters, or picking apples. Every bomb dropped was a step towards peace.

Memorial or not, we will remember them, on all sides.

[Oberon]

Ditto for what BossMark has said. It isn't about the leaders, or the commanders, it's about the airmen who braved flak and fighter on their mission, and indeed there should be recognition of the civilian and service personnel injured or killed in these raids, be they in London, Berlin, Tokyo or Leningrad.

Long overdue

[NeonSamurai]

See I would argue that many of these attacks were criminal as they purposely targeted non-combatants. The Blitz, Dresden, the carpet bombing of cities by the allies late in the war, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. All the powers involved in WW2 were guilty of intentional terror bombing.

I see a huge difference between that and collateral damage.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

See I would argue that many of these attacks were criminal as they purposely targeted non-combatants. The Blitz, Dresden, the carpet bombing of cities by the allies late in the war, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. All the powers involved in WW2 were guilty of intentional terror bombing.

Destroy the homes of those who work in the factories and make those on the front lines worry about those at home, destroy their morale, reduce their work-effort. I'm not saying it was right, but that was the reasoning given.

[Sammi79]

It is a good thing. I wish my Grandad were here to see it. Many of his close friends died doing their job. He never spoke about his missions, apart from once when pressed by me when I was a child to relate a story about a bird strike on take off, that meant flying the rest of the 10+ hour mission with no windscreen and the entire crew covered in blood and feathers whilst slowly succumbing to frostbite. One of my cousins who was his favourite Grandson has since his death researched everything he could find out about his tours of duty, from RAF records, other survivors etc... There is a painting hanging in RAF Hendon that captures a moment that happened to him and his crew, by a crew member of another aircraft. My Grandad was flying in close formation when a bomb from a higher formation hit the aircraft directly ahead of his, and detonated all the bombs inside. His Lancaster was tilted past the vertical by the blast and badly damaged, after somehow managing to regain control he limped back to Mildenhall where the Lanc was written off. The mission was a complete disaster, so the next morning they were ordered to repeat it. It took nerves of steel to do that job, and I am only finding out about it now, 9 years after his death.

5th November, 1944 over Solingen. My Grandads Lanc is the one directly left of the explosion.



He did his duty then lived out the rest of his life in shame and regret. In his own words 'Son, please do not ask me to tell you these stories. I have to live with the fact that I dropped hundreds of tons of high explosives on people whom I had never met and had no personal quarrel with. It is something I hope you never have to understand.'

RAF bomber crews took horrendous losses, and suffered an unimaginable level of physical and mental stress. They always deserved a memorial, some would say more so than other less affected branches of the military, and it is a testament to compassion for the victims of these raids that it has been put off til now. I am truly sorry if any Germans feel irritated by it. With the comfortable benefit of hindsight we may not think what they did was right, but it was their duty.

Regards, Sam.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

See I would argue that many of these attacks were criminal as they purposely targeted non-combatants. The Blitz, Dresden, the carpet bombing of cities by the allies late in the war, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. All the powers involved in WW2 were guilty of intentional terror bombing.

I see a huge difference between that and collateral damage.

I think the difference between criminal and non-criminal still is that in WWII it was thought that shattering the combat moral of the German population (or the Londoners) by putting their cities to ruins, was possible. That is what made it a military "tactic", although one that did not work: it did not break public moral, but brought people closer together in stubborn determination. But that we know onyl since afterwards, and today.

To imply present moral standards on situations back then and inside that war, imo does not match.

I agree though that the victims of such bombing raids againbst cities were no collateral damages, but the intended target of such attacks. But again: not a target for gaining personal satisfaction or revenge by for example committing mass rapes like the Soviets in berlin and the Japanese in Nanking, but a target due to miliutary assumnption on how that would help to break the combat will of the German and help to let the enemy collapse form within.

I am not in the historic knowledge since when, if ever, Allied commanders realised the tactic did not work. If at some point they realised that it was ineffective and id not work for the desired result, from then on continuing such attacks would have been a "crime", imo. By my thinking, it then no longer is an issue covered by the standards of war, but the moral standards of peacetime, since it would have been then a tactic that serves no military purpose anymore. (I argued in past threads that it makes no sense to imply peacetime standards onto acting in war, but that war has its own set of standards and needs, and that these are very different from those in peacetime. It already starts with that at war you do not get punished for doing what when doing it in peacetimes you would serve life in prison for: killing other humans).

BTW, the Nazis had started with targetting cities. During the conquest of Poland already, at the very beginning of WWII, Warsaw was subject to extremely intense artillery shelling and dive bombing attacks. This later repeated often during the war in Russia.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

BTW, the Nazis had started with targetting cities. During the conquest of Poland already, at the very beginning of WWII, Warsaw was subject to extremely intense artillery shelling and dive bombing attacks. This later repeated often during the war in Russia.

It goes back further than Poland, the first trials of terror-bombing was in the Spanish Civil War with the particular note of Guernica:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

Although it goes back even further than that to World War One and the Zeppelin raids on London, and then joined by the bomber aircraft once they got into service. Mostly ineffective they still managed to kill over a thousand people. The fact that on most occasions the bomber got through lead to the myth 'The bomber will always get through' which affected the thinking of British doctrine and spurred on the development of RADAR and large bomber forces for retaliation, in a form of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Bomber Command practiced bombing in Iraq between the wars, and it became our policy in dealing with Arabic uprisings which reduced the amount of troops needed on the ground, and the Condor Legion practiced in Spain.
Then there's Japanese bombing of Chinese cities which also took place before Poland. It snowballed when the war spread out across Europe though and the raids began.

[Skybird]

Well, I was focussing on the timeframe Sept 1939-45.

That Zeppelins had bombed London in WWI, was new to me. Did they return back to safety?

[Oberon]

Well said Sam, and a salute to your grandfather, and Herr B I think the Zeppelins actually improved Great Yarmouth

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, I was focussing on the timeframe Sept 1939-45.

That Zeppelins had bombed London in WWI, was new to me. Did they return back to safety?

Most didn't, I think over half were lost of the 125 deployed, I think they were mostly successful in night raids, but even then searchlights and that could pick them out for the fighters with incendiary ammo and flak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppeli..._bombing_raids

The last Zeppelin shot down on British soil came down not that far from here brought down by fighters from the aerodrome that used to be down the road. The dead were buried in Theberton churchyard, and this little memorial is in the church itself:

[Herr-Berbunch]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...or-attack.html

To be fair, the first couple bombed Great Yarmouth. Nobody noticed.