The Second World War again

You can thank the war-criminal Churchill and his associates for the blitz. A British war advisor convinced Churchill to conduct terror bombing on German cities. This was before the Germans did any such thing. The goal was to maximize the number of Germans civilians killed, maimed and pauperized; so the Brits targeted the high populated areas housing the poorer German population. The foul TYRANT Chruchill jumped at this plan to murder German women, children and old persons. Soilders were not located in these areas. It was clearly a war crime of monsterous preportions. The U.S. was also greatly engaged in war-crime terror bombings in Germany and Japan, killing millions of civilians and quite a few allied POWs and civilians. Recent reports have analyzed these terror bombings and concluded it was a very poor choice of use of scarce war resources.

The Germans retaliated in kind, blitzes, but wilh less success. The Germans had never planned terror bombings of civilions and did not have proper bombers engineered to accomplish such missions. The Russians didn't engage in war-crime bombing of urban populations. Of course they did terrible things, such as causing the death of over a million German women and female children through gang rape and murder. That figure includes German females that committed suicide due to Russian atrocities. They could rape and kill at their pleasure.

Hitler never thought the British would be so foolish as to decare war. Of course the British plan was always to have their allies do most of the dying and spending and that is the way is was played out. Research the casualties if you doubt this.

TJ, you should do a bit more reading before you attack people with mis information........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... rld_War_II this should get you started. My Mother brought us up with stories of the Bombings, she went through it in the City of Plymouth.

trubrit wrote:TJ I presume you are old enough to be making these statements from your own experience and not just repeating what you have read or seen in the movies?My posting apart from the statistics was based on my own personal knowledge, not on what I have read. I do not have to defend Churchill. We won the war, that says it all as far as I am concerned .

FYI I am 68. Though I have a decent library the sources for my comments were found on the internet.

The worst marine disaster in history was the Russian torpedoing and sinking of a ship transporting German refugees and when the captain was asked why he sank the ship filled with refugees his response was that we won and they lost. So, what do you mean saying that "we won the war." Does that wipe out all war crimes perpertrated by the allies?

Was it ok for Russian soldiers to rape and murder at their whim? Was it ok for the allies under the Morganthau Plan to try to liquidate a third of the German population following the end ot WWII?

For anyone interested in the 2nd World War I thoroughly recommend a 26-episode British television documentary series called "The World at War" The documentary uses actual footage of the fighting and the civilians and tells the story as a factual account without taking sides. I recently downloaded the whole series using utorrent from piratebay.

TJ wrote:

trubrit wrote:TJ I presume you are old enough to be making these statements from your own experience and not just repeating what you have read or seen in the movies?My posting apart from the statistics was based on my own personal knowledge, not on what I have read. I do not have to defend Churchill. We won the war, that says it all as far as I am concerned .

FYI I am 68. Though I have a decent library the sources for my comments were found on the internet.

The worst marine disaster in history was the Russian torpedoing and sinking of a ship transporting German refugees and when the captain was asked why he sank the ship filled with refugees his response was that we won and they lost. So, what do you mean saying that "we won the war." Does that wipe out all war crimes perpertrated by the allies?

Was it ok for Russian soldiers to rape and murder at their whim? Was it ok for the allies under the Morganthau Plan to try to liquidate a third of the German population following the end ot WWII?

Again you got it wrong, re-read the Story on the Morganthau plan and you will notice that it was Watered Down by Churchill and accepted by Roosevelt. It was later abandoned............http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

T.J I would have to agree with you---that Churchill was far from a beloved leader inside Britain—as he was probably viewed from afar.--- hence his quick and humiliating landslide defeat at the ballot box,--never to return as soon as the war was over, in what was apt named “The Khaki Election” delayed so all the troops---who overwhelmingly wanted him out-- votes could counted…..he may be more remembered by some older British workers by his tactics of the use of troops to break up strikes and hunger marches before the war.

I can’t fully agree with you on some other views--- However.

Britain also lent a large amount from Canada during the war as did so many other countries--- something you do not hear the Canadians get many Kudos’s for. Britain was the only country to pay back its war debt, which took it to 2007 to achieve, all other countries debts war debts were declared void by Jimmy Carter--*1stars & stripes

Code: Select all

Think you’ve waited a long time for an old friend to pay back a loan? Try 60 years. That’s how long it took the United Kingdom to pay off the nearly $5 billion — or roughly $50 billion in today’s money— it borrowed from the U.S. at the conclusion of World War II. The loan made news recently when Britain made its final $83 million payment on Dec. 29. All told, Britain made 50 installments — it deferred payments several times in years of economic hardship— for a total of $7.5 billion, including interest, according
to Her Majesty’s Treasury. “We finally honor in full our commitments to the U.S. and Canada for the support they gave us 60 years ago,”

1 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... 070110.pdf

Blitz

The British side of the story is that Germany first broke this agreement, Germany had already Bombed Warsaw---but Britain accepted there explanation that this was a Fortified Military city.

But this was in no way the case in Rotterdam.

Code: Select all

The United Kingdom's policy was formulated on 31 August 1939: if Germany initiated unrestricted air action, the United Kingdom "should attack objectives vital to Germany's war effort, and in particular her oil resources". If Germany confined attacks to purely military targets, the RAF should "launch an attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven" and "attack warships at sea when found within range".[22] [b]The government communicated to their French allies the intention "not to initiate air action which might involve the risk of civilian casualties"[/b][23]
While it was acknowledged bombing Germany would cause civilian casualties, [b]the British government renounced deliberate bombing of civilian property, outside combat zones, as a military tactic[/b].[24] The British abandoned this policy on 15 May 1940, one day after the Rotterdam Blitz, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr, including oil plants and other civilian industrial targets which aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self-illuminating. The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 15/16 May 1940.[25] *2 Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... rld_War_II

I think the greatest civilian deaths by bombing were the fire bombs over Japan --- this is covered by Robert S. McNamara –in an excellent Book and film/DVD “The Fog of War” he was employed at that time to help maximize the affect of bombing over Japan---this was done by Firebombing—in a typical Asian country all houses made of wood and very close to each other--- the Deaths from the Firebombing far exceeded the A-Bomb Casualties, and in a frank interview he does state that if “we” had lost the war, then for this act alone we would have certainly been tried for war crimes.

In the book/DVD He apologies ---and recognizes many of the mistakes made when he was Secretary of state. Before being sacked for telling Pres Johnson –America could not win the war in Vietnam.

He lists the 11 reasons in retrospect on that war, that to me have some eerie echoes of a current conflict.


1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4. Our judgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound[ ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.

6. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

7.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action

8. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world

***Mod Note - some text transferred back to other topic***

For someone like Jai, who comes from the states to criticize our leadership and write such utter rubbish beggars belief. The States, never got into the war with Germany until Oct. 1940, when the Battle of Britain was over, and up to that time was supplying the Germans with petrol and a lot of other things. Because of a Wolf Pack leader torpedoing a U.S. cargo ship south of Iceland, in mistake for a British ship, I doubt wither they would have been in the war against Germany until much later. Yes we had the help of our allies, which we thank, the U.S. not being one at that time. Also the Germans were the first to bomb non military targets not the other way around as Jai stated. He wants to stop reading comic books and get the facts correct.
As a friend of mine once said, name one war that the US has been in, without help from another country, and won. I myself cannot think of one.
Rant over.

As a friend of mine once said, name one war that the US has been in, without help from another country, and won. I myself cannot think of one.

Just guessing here, but how about the American Civil war

tj you want to get ur facts right.you have made yourself look a fool

Malc wrote:tj you want to get ur facts right.you have made yourself look a fool

Yep, I have to agree with Malc on that one.

Firstly Germany used their blitzkrieg attacks on European countries in 1939, which included using Stukas, day and night bombing of cities, military targets, civilians, the lot.

Secondly, the Germans had been trying to control the skies over Great Britain throughout the summer of 1940, with their daytime bombing of British cities, leading up to the Battle of Britain (August - September 1940). Eventually they gave up, and switched to night time bombing of London and British cities.

Britain was in no condition to bomb their towns and cities until much later, and in retaliation for what they had been doing to British towns and cities.

lest get it straight ,the Germans had the reputation from the 1st world war of bombing civilians ,they were always the first to bomb civilian targets from their airships .they had always been a farking nuisance as war mongers for generations. they werent happy if they didnt have some war going on somewhere so they were viewed with deep suspicion even in happy times when they were building up their war efforts for another round of trouble.

****************************************************

At the outbreak of the war the German army had six operational dirigibles, and the navy had one. The army was quick to experiment with them - bombing Liege and Antwerp - despite the fact that at this stage no specially designed aerial bombs existed. But the army's initial experience was not encouraging - they lost three airships in the first months of the war to anti aircraft fire.

Despite this the navy was very enthusiastic. They saw the Zeppelin as a solution to their reconnaissance problems. If the army traditionally used the cavalry for reconnaissance, the navy traditionally used the light cruiser. Germany had very few such ships, and an airship was viewed as being cheaper and less vulnerable.

Framework of a Zeppelin shot down over England, 23 Sep 1916Under the command of Korvettenkapitan Peter Strasser the navy quickly acquired more airships. Throughout 1914 these were used for reconnaissance patrols over the North Sea, but the German Admiralty was pressing for permission to use them for attacks against England. [b]The Kaiser, somewhat reluctantly, granted such permission and on the 19th of January the Germans carried out the first Zeppelin raid against Britain, killing two and injuring sixteen.[/b]

This was the first of many raids, which continued at a rate of about two per month, in parallel with the continuing reconnaissance patrols. The German Admiralty was very enthusiastic about the results, and asked for permission to bomb London. This was only granted by the Kaiser after a series of raids by French bombers on German cities. On the 31st of May 1915 the first raid was carried out against London, killing seven and injuring thirty five.

The most successful Zeppelin raid on London in the entire war was on the 8th of September 1915. This raid caused more than half a million pounds of damage, almost all of it from the one Zeppelin, the L13, which managed to bomb central London. This single raid caused more than half the material damage caused by all the raids against Britain in 1915.

Very informative Izzix, a good quote, with no source quoted, BUT the topic here is the SECOND WORLD WAR, not the First World WAR!!

Must admit it's the first time I've heard Churchill described as a "FOUL TYRANT" How can someone who has been democratically elected and then voted out be a tyrant.? I will always view him as a National Hero.
I wont drop to TJ's level and start insulting the Presidents of America.
I wonder what he describes Hitler as?.

yes 1st world war but you cant forget the Germans reputation as always being a persistent nuisance. you can compare them with the KLINGONs ,always looking for trouble. it was in the nature to be looking for a fight with somebody .
like the Welsh in fact

This is coming from an American who's country go to war so they can tie up the oil fields, Think you better look at getting your own house in order before commenting on other nations.