Dangerous revisionism

[Star of David Bardsley]

Has a thread ever so quickly resulted in its OP asking for it to be locked?

There’s a very obvious culture war being yearned for as ‘we’ constantly need new enemies. It’s very dull.

It’s obviously possible to both laud Churchill’s achievements and discuss the sort of bloke he was or the impact he had on the world outside of WWII.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

I find it quite interesting that Churchill had to really bully and cajole the British Parliament, and then the Whitehouse, into accepting an alliance with Stalin’s Russia. He famously said he’d sign a treaty with the devil , if it helped him defeat Hitler. But to some people across the globe, Churchill was the devil, and the British Empire was their oppressor.

In the end Hitler was the greater evil, and whatever and whoever it took defeat him was an acceptable price. But weren’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki also war crimes? And what about Dresden? (there’s a reason why bomber command had to wait decades to get their own memorial).

Nothing in history is ever straightforward, which is while I smile when people say “you can’t change history”. Our knowledge and perception of it changes all the time.

a) Yes those were war crimes. The victors get to decide the rules that are applied. Dresden in particular I believe was a hush hush; just don't recognise bomber command in various celebrations etc.

b) yes absolutely time and current thinking always changes view of history.

c) yes absolutely hitler was the immediate and massive danger. It was total war. in that context how things ened up afterward was what it was. In many ways WWII saved churchill from having absolutely no real positive legacy to the world at all.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

the original point was dangerous revisionism. I only comments really on one thing said as supporting evidence. I have not particularly commented on erasing of the good within the outcomes of imperial expansion

 

[brb]

WTF?

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Treble]

No one cares what you think or say, least of all me, I dont read your ****e 99% of the time, and stuff like this is far beyond your cognitive understanding.

Stick to football hot pie trader

I honestly don't get why you've responded to a really considered and intelligent post with that abuse. I've read pretty much all the replies (sad I know) and surprisingly no one has derailed or stonewalled your OP. But you've literally spoiled your own thread with that post. You really are irrational at times and as Tobes says incapable of reasonable dialogue. Or maybe that's not what you want anyway.

As for the topic itself, I don't really care about judging a man long since dead. I'm far more interested in learning from the mistakes and injustices of the past, otherwise as they say we're doomed to repeat them. And the sad fact is we don't learn from the past.

We're quite happy (perhaps indifferent or nonchalent are a better description) for things to be repeated as long as they're not on our doorstep or don't serve our interests. Then bitch about them when they eventually come back to bite us on our arse. There's plenty going on around the world which emulate the worst of Empire (British or otherwise) and plenty that emulate the atrocities of the Nazis. So the idea of having a pissing contest between which was worse seems a bit fcking stoopid if you don't mind me saying when we're quite content to let them continue in different guises today.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

Sacrifice is not my point; it was not about human suffering.

It was purely a comment on what prevented the nazi empire from taking root over a longer period.

So am I wrong, that the US capitalist resources poured in and the Russian front where 80% of nazi forces were occupied and destroyed where where the nazi blight was really smashed?

Personally I think suffering is a whole other debate imo, one that is simpler to acknowledge and empathise with. It should be noted that the merits and history of empire is full of personal suffering so a few can benefit.

The Nazi's lost a lot of resources, experienced pilots, time and energy fighting the Battle of Britain. Also the 10-20% of the fighting German army had to maintain presence in France in the event of an eventual sea invasion from Britain. All of which means that without British efforts, the extra 10-20% of the German army would have been fighting the Russians. They were within a whisker of getting into Moscow despite this. That extra 10-20% extra may have tipped the balance in Germany's favour. Then theres the morale factor. 'In the Battle of Britain, for the first time during the Second World War, the German war machine had set itself a major task which it patently failed to achieve, and so demonstrated that it was not invincible. In stiffening the resolve of those determined to resist Hitler the battle was an important turning point in the conflict'

 

[brb]

But weren’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki also war crimes? And what about Dresden? (there’s a reason why bomber command had to wait decades to get their own memorial).

I can't remember which one, I think it was Nagasaki - it was never the intended target. For whatever reason they couldn't hit the intended target, so they decided on flypast they couldn't return with their payload and just dropped it regardless. Nagasaki was dropped from the list of being bombed due to significant reasons, one being it held prisoners of war. Certainly seems like a war crime to me.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

The Nazi's lost a lot of resources, experienced pilots, time and energy fighting the Battle of Britain. Also the 10-20% of the fighting German army had to maintain presence in France in the event of an eventual sea invasion from Britain. All of which means that without British efforts, the extra 10-20% of the German army would have been fighting the Russians. They were within a whisker of getting into Moscow despite this. That extra 10-20% extra may have tipped the balance in Germany's favour. Then theres the morale factor. 'In the Battle of Britain, for the first time during the Second World War, the German war machine had set itself a major task which it patently failed to achieve, and so demonstrated that it was not invincible. In stiffening the resolve of those determined to resist Hitler the battle was an important turning point in the conflict'

All true points. 80% of nazi forces were on the eastern front. yes there is a contribution. I am not denying that. I am saying the US capital investment alone made that possible and russian forces made the bigger contribution in the end.

In 1941 there was a massive german victory in all honesty that that extra 10% probably wouldn't turn around. The siege of Leningrad for example might have been replicated at moscow. they were shelling the city but it was winter and complete lack of preparedness for that that cost the germans.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

All true points. 80% of nazi forces were on the eastern front. yes there is a contribution. I am not denying that. I am saying the US capital investment alone made that possible and russian forces made the bigger contribution in the end.

In 1941 there was a massive german victory in all honesty that that extra 10% probably wouldn't turn around. The siege of Leningrad for example might have been replicated at moscow. they were shelling the city but it was winter and complete lack of preparedness for that that cost the germans.

Aye, if each German soldier had been fitted with a woolly jumper and a pair of thermal underpants then history may have been completely different.

 

[Solid Air]

Dresden in principle was no different to any other of the mass raids and technically did have a military value as an important transport hub .One of the first mass raids on Hamburg also caused a firestorm . On the nukes the only difference to that and Le Mays fire bombing campaign is the long term radiation problem .

Oh and how come the yanks never take any of the grief re Dresden as they were bombing it during the day while we hit at night .

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Aye, if each German soldier had been fitted with a woolly jumper and a pair of thermal underpants then history may have been completely different.

ahem

frozen engine oil, no winter coats, no winter boots (hob nails creating frost bite etc etc etc)

There are many many discussions on line and breif histories of the battle of moscow and the run up to it.

For example autumn in rissua the roads were pure mud and held up the germans. Again the germans decided to pivot based on their successes to take Kiev and Leningrad and so on. the fact is from October to December the germans ground to a halt and had to gve up their assault due to winter and then on 5th December a massive counter attack was mounted by the soviets who were more adapted to the conditions but were also fresh.

It was -40 degrees in that decemebr and the germans couldn't cope but the soviets could.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Dresden in principle was no different to any other of the mass raids and technically did have a military value as an important transport hub .One of the first mass raids on Hamburg also caused a firestorm . On the nukes the only difference to that and Le Mays fire bombing campaign is the long term radiation problem .

Oh and how come the yanks never take any of the grief re Dresden as they were bombing it during the day while we hit at night .

bar the specific target for the bombing was not the railhead but actually the town centre as it was an easier target to identify.

the bombs were dropped at the target of he sports stadium which was well away from the military target (if the rail head really was one)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51448486

I've been to dresden

 

[Solid Air]

bar the specific target for the bombing was not the railhead but actually the town centre as it was an easier target to identify.

the bombs were dropped at the target of he sports stadium which was well away from the military target (if the rail head really was one)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51448486

I've been to dresden

and how is that different to any of the mass nightime city raids we carried out as specific target aiming was impossible plus even in daylight with our bomb sights accuracy was measured in miles not yards .
Basically until very recently nearly all bombing could be considered a war crime as civilian casualties were pretty much a given due to the limited technology .

 

[Archers Road]

Dresden in principle was no different to any other of the mass raids and technically did have a military value as an important transport hub .One of the first mass raids on Hamburg also caused a firestorm . On the nukes the only difference to that and Le Mays fire bombing campaign is the long term radiation problem .

Oh and how come the yanks never take any of the grief re Dresden as they were bombing it during the day while we hit at night .

I think the Yanks have taken plenty of the “grief” about Dresden, if by grief you mean shared responsibility. Kurt Vonnegut’s book Slaughterhouse 5, based on his experiences as an American P.O.W. made to clear the site after the raids, did a lot to bring Dresden to public attention in the West.

The attrition rate for bomber crews (US and British) was horrific btw. Huge numbers of allied servicemen lost their lives bombing German (and French) industrial centres, but their courage and sacrifice was barely acknowledged by either government for decades after the war, because the authorities preferred not to draw attention to that campaign.

Churchill, for what that’s worth, was very ambivalent about bomber command’s strategy of hitting industrial targets in civilian centres.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

ahem

frozen engine oil, no winter coats, no winter boots (hob nails creating frost bite etc etc etc)

There are many many discussions on line and breif histories of the battle of moscow and the run up to it.

For example autumn in rissua the roads were pure mud and held up the germans. Again the germans decided to pivot based on their successes to take Kiev and Leningrad and so on. the fact is from October to December the germans ground to a halt and had to gve up their assault due to winter and then on 5th December a massive counter attack was mounted by the soviets who were more adapted to the conditions but were also fresh.

It was -40 degrees in that decemebr and the germans couldn't cope but the soviets could.

And I was stressed at how cold the petrol pump handle was when I had to fill the car up over the weekend. Frigging freezing it was!

 

[remembercolinlee]

Close this thread mods, a couple get it, but the rest, like that low IQ potat Tobes only want to pick at something because I posted it, rather than actually discuss the merits of revising history in order to make young minds hate a dishonest version of their own history, when its better understand bad things that happened in history and how we can stop them happening again.


My mistake, I'll stick to footie

No hissy fit no sireee...not at all bothered that people use their freedom of speech to disagree or make other points...nope...I am right they are wrong so close the thread cos no one can learn anything from reading other ideas different to theirs.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

And I was stressed at how cold the petrol pump handle was when I had to fill the car up over the weekend. Frigging freezing it was!

absolutely. Was talking to someone in poland there a few days back and it was -15 there.

I've experienced -11 in the USA during a polar vortex thingy but -40? it must be tasty.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

and how is that different to any of the mass nightime city raids we carried out as specific target aiming was impossible plus even in daylight with our bomb sights accuracy was measured in miles not yards .
Basically until very recently nearly all bombing could be considered a war crime as civilian casualties were pretty much a given due to the limited technology .

because it was known to be a pointless exercise. they could have targeted the rail head but when supposedly 1/4 of industrial targets got hit but 50% of residential was destroyed it points to a pretty major deliberate lack of caring.

 

[remembercolinlee]

My issue with history is that only one side of it is taught.
My family originate from Trinidad but I was born here so condider myself mixed raced British.
History we are taught is beyond boring and very one sided.
We are not really taught about the history of how our ancestors fought against slavery or for the vote or for working/union rights.
Few people no anything about the diggers or the chartists, they know very little about the English revolution or about how the Government turned a blind eye to Nazi involvement in Spain in the mid 30s while thousands of British trade unionists went to Spain and fought Fascism only to be persecuted on their return home.

You could go on and on...but in short we are generally taught the history of rich and famous people creating change rather than the real social driving force behind the social movements for change.

I don't think that "we" should be ashamed of "our" history because those who created wars, enforced colonialism, benefited from slavery were also attacking working people, social campaigners, the poor trade unionists etc in this country.

I am proud of a lot of British history but it just happens to be the history that successive British governments are very reluctant to teach in schools.

 

[Treble]

My issue with history is that only one side of it is taught.
My family originate from Trinidad but I was born here so condider myself mixed raced British.
History we are taught is beyond boring and very one sided.
We are not really taught about the history of how our ancestors fought against slavery or for the vote or for working/union rights.
Few people no anything about the diggers or the chartists, they know very little about the English revolution or about how the Government turned a blind eye to Nazi involvement in Spain in the mid 30s while thousands of British trade unionists went to Spain and fought Fascism only to be persecuted on their return home.

You could go on and on...but in short we are generally taught the history of rich and famous people creating change rather than the real social driving force behind the social movements for change.

I don't think that "we" should be ashamed of "our" history because those who created wars, enforced colonialism, benefited from slavery were also attacking working people, social campaigners, the poor trade unionists etc in this country.

I am proud of a lot of British history but it just happens to be the history that successive British governments are very reluctant to teach in schools.

My issue with history...

You must log in or register to see images