This is what you get when you have a nation descended from criminals, they’ll nick anything 
That particular saying is originally by Oscar Wilde, who IIRC never even visited the antipodes!
Rising Sun* wrote:
How does this fit in with the view you have expressed in other threads that Lend Lease and other non-Soviet Allied support wasn’t all that important to the Russian industrial and military powerhouse which steamrolled the Germans who committed everything that mattered to their eastern front, where the Soviet almost single-handedly defeated Germany?
Here we go again! “almost single-handedly” my ass!
Rising Sun, listen. I hope your were just being sarcastic. Right? Because I am tired to repeat that no normal person claims that the Soviet almost single-handedly defeated Germany. By the way it is not Germany. It is almost whole Europe under the German rule.
Anyway, Chevan and I were arguing that the lend-lease was not THE reason USSR did what it did. LL was a nice and very needed addition to the main effort.
Is not it also obvious that the winning powers take the retributions the way they want (almost). Especially a winner like USSR which devastation from the war was enormous. So the Western Allies had NO doubt that Stalin wants to get the booty. On the other hand I do not think that USA/UK specificaly tried to destroy the potential USSR booty. But I do not completely rule out that it could be part of their logic in the case of Dresden.
The thing is, you guys have missed the point about Harris and consequently your thoughts are wide of the mark. But this is common.
Now if you attacked Harris’ record from the standpoint of OIL, then you have a sound arguement. This was Harris’ big mistake, refusing to budge from his policy of destroying German cities, which he and Churchill and the British cabinet saw as a legitimate war aim.
Had the RAF switched to bombing oil targets heavily in 1944, then the war may have been shortened by six to twelve months.
Regards digger
Digger,
That is right. And I believe it has been mentioned in this thread as well.
But this is a thechnical question. The other side of the medal was that, as you well put it, “his policy of destroying German cities, which he and Churchill and the British cabinet saw as a legitimate war aim”.
And this explains it all.
You see fx. Japanese were seeing civilians of diferent races as ligitimate subjects for biological experiments. The British cabinet saw civil populated town centers as targets too. I am not claiming that this are comparable in magnitude, but it is in the same direction. And in case you want to comment: NO, I do not think that russians were angels.
I even kind of understand the British cabinet logic. But lets be open about it and admit that they bombed civilians on purpose. Many people deny it.
Naturally!
We’re descended from the best criminal stock.
British.
And, creme de la creme, Irish. 
And here’s today’s example of what the Irish strain can do in the modern world.
Police charge hit-run tram hoon
July 6, 2007 - 2:23PMPolice have charged a man over a hit-run collision involving a tram at St Kilda, in Melbourne’s inner-south, last night.
St Kilda detectives had been told an errant motorist appeared do a burnout in busy Acland Street at 8.30pm before he lost control of his silver Ford sedan and slammed into a stationary tram.
Police spokeswoman Alison Noonan said the motorist then took off and almost hit a policeman who was helping paramedics treat a drug-affected man in an unrelated nearby incident.
“Fortunately, the offending driver was kind enough to leave the car’s bumper bar, with number plate still attached, on the tram tracks,” Ms Noonan said.
Police found and seized the rest of the car in Elsternwick late this morning, and it was towed to the Victoria Forensic Science Centre in Macleod.
St Kilda detectives this afternoon charged a 28-year-old Sydenham man with a number of driving offences which included conduct endangering life, leaving the scene of an accident and driving while disqualified.
He has been released on bail to appear at the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court on September 20 this year.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/police-charge-hitrun-tram-hoon/2007/07/06/1183351412291.html
That particular saying is originally by Oscar Wilde, who IIRC never even visited the antipodes!
Probably best that he didn’t.
Reading Gaol would have been a lot more congenial than the land that abhors poofters (e.g. the Monty Python ‘No poofters’ sketch) although, rather more than the Royal Navy, we were founded on rum, buggery and the lash. Not that you’ll find that in the standard histories which seem to think that nothing untoward might have happened in a colony full of male criminals and male soldiers guarding them with nary a woman in sight. Although there was the occasional (usually commuted) sentence of death among the British prisoners in the early days for the unnatural act of the abominable crime of buggery.
Oscar would have been sore pressed down here.
You have a donkey? How do you manage to feed it in Copenhagen?
Rising Sun, listen. I hope your were just being sarcastic. Right?
Sarcastic? Moi?
Because I am tired to repeat that no normal person claims that the Soviet almost single-handedly defeated Germany.
Mate, that’s not the way a lot of the Russian stuff has come over. It might not be what was intended or the way it was seen by the posters, but there was a strong line that Russia / Soviets faced the biggest number of German forces (which no one disputes) and that the effort and effect of the other Allies was marginal. And that was a view that a number of other members picked up, not just me. At its most ridiculous the same line wanted to demonstrate that by coming in in the last few days of the war against Japan Russia / Soviets faced the biggest and worst Japanese forces that ever existed, after defeating much the same in 1939. And, oddly enough, this “Russsia / Soviets always faced the biggest forces” attitude happens to be reinforced by your next sentence after the last quote.
By the way it is not Germany. It is almost whole Europe under the German rule.
Didn’t this apply also to the other Allies?
Is not it also obvious that the winning powers take the retributions the way they want (almost).
No.
I don’t think there was much in the way of retribution in the Western zone, apart from the Nuremburg trials.
Especially a winner like USSR which devastation from the war was enormous.
If great suffering justifies retribution, how come Poland got such a shitty deal from both Germany and Russia before, during and after the war?
So the Western Allies had NO doubt that Stalin wants to get the booty.
This has been asserted in an earlier post.
Where is the evidence?
IIRC at one point they shipped out an entire boatload of women prisoners specially sentenced to transportation just to make sure the colony got off to a good start. If that isn’t prior planning and preparation, I don’t know what is!
I have a surprise for you: I can say EXACTLY the same about the US/UK view on the WW2. Just listen to it: "Mate, that’s not the way a lot of the American/British stuff has come over. ". And so on…
It is only when you really understand that, we, russians (in fact it is far from only ethnic russians as Russia is a multinational state) get so much of this what you complained about, you will realise the situation is rather in your favor than in ours. You won the propaganda war and you control most of the media channels in the world. So do not wory the game is still going on by your rules.
I just want to say that I get just as much (probably more) of that crap that you mentioned.
And that was a view that a number of other members picked up, not just me. At its most ridiculous the same line wanted to demonstrate that by coming in in the last few days of the war against Japan Russia / Soviets faced the biggest and worst Japanese forces that ever existed, after defeating much the same in 1939.
Again. The discussion about the Kwantung army in 1945 was driven by the statements by my openents about complete insignificanse of the Soviet actions. Yes I do think that it had impact even at that late stage. But I never claimed that USSR had overal comparable to US/UK impact on Japan. So there is no point to make it up.
Again try to imaging that you are wrong and then see at the problem. It is called to be open minded. I strife to do as much as possible.
And, oddly enough, this “Russsia / Soviets always faced the biggest forces” attitude happens to be reinforced by your next sentence after the last quote.
What are you talking about? Which “last quote”?
[QUOTE]By the way it is not Germany. It is almost whole Europe under the German rule.
Didn’t this apply also to the other Allies?[/QUOTE]
Of course it did apply to the other Allies.
[QUOTE]Is not it also obvious that the winning powers take the retributions the way they want (almost).
No.
I don’t think there was much in the way of retribution in the Western zone, apart from the Nuremburg trials.
If great suffering justifies retribution, how come Poland got such a shitty deal from both Germany and Russia before, during and after the war?[/QUOTE]
I made a mistake. I didn’t mean retribution but Contribution - the loosing side pays the winers for the restoration of the economy plus extra charge. Though retribution was , unfortunately, part of the equation too.
So USSR stripped most of the material goods like cars, wires, phones, ect and took it to USSR. The western allies did not need the german hardware so they drained other things like the patents and all kinds of knowhows (they already had satisfied they urge for REtrebution during the strategic bombing companes).
[QUOTE]So the Western Allies had NO doubt that Stalin wants to get the booty.
This has been asserted in an earlier post.
Where is the evidence?[/QUOTE]
Did not Chirchil said something like I would even make deal with devil if it could only help aginst Hitler. And later after his realisation that Stalin was bigger threat he said: “Gentlemen, it appears that we have slain the wrong pig”.
What kind of evidence you expected?
Egorka, Churchills hatred of Communism is well known and from what I am aware has never been really hidden. I think I’ll start a thread about that subject.
Repatriations. This is a dirty word for me, because as much as the victors of any war snare the spoils, this inevitably leads to continued hatred and animosity. The roots of WWII may very well have their origins in the Treaty of Versailles, but also the Brest Liovosk Treaty as well. The terms of this treaty were far harsher than the Treaty of Versailles, so any Soviet war repatriations at the conclusion of WWII should be seen in a different light.
Regards digger.
That is right. I just wanted to show it was natural that Churchill expected Stalin to do things, he (W.C.) considered to be bad. Hense repatriations were expected.
Repatriations. This is a dirty word for me, because as much as the victors of any war snare the spoils, this inevitably leads to continued hatred and animosity. The roots of WWII may very well have their origins in the Treaty of Versailles, but also the Brest Liovosk Treaty as well. The terms of this treaty were far harsher than the Treaty of Versailles, so any Soviet war repatriations at the conclusion of WWII should be seen in a different light.
Regards digger.
In Russian “Repatriations” is “Контрибуции”, it’s a word copy loaned from French, I guess, word meaning “Contributions”.
Dirty word? Yeahhh, kind of. I guess by it self it is not dirty. It is the scale of repatriations that makes it dirty. And I agree with you that the outcome of Versailles and Brest Litovsk had contributed heavily to the known historical events discussed here.
Fair enough.
I think we’re both, and others on both sides of this aspect of the war, responding in exactly the same way: We feel that our nation’s effort hasn’t been adequately recognised by others.
Mainly because, inevitably, the starting point for most of us is our own nation’s experience.
We’re probably all a bit sensitive about misconceptions about what our own nation did, suffered, and experienced. And much better informed on that aspect than on what happened in other nations.
Still, at least on this forum we are able to put forward our own views and challenge others’ views, rather than just sucking up whatever history is handed down to us by our own nation.
It may surprise you to know that I’ve learnt a lot from the debates here about Russian / Soviet aspects of the war and have a better understanding of that contribution from those debates.
There would be no debate if we all saw everything the same way.
Having said that, I still don’t understand why you and Chevan think that the most important battles in the war were fought in and by the USSR when anybody can see that they were fought on Australia’s frontiers. (To avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary hostility, this is an intentionally silly comment to illustrate the points I just made.)
Egorka and Digger
Are you talking about repatriations or reparations?
Repatriation is sending people back to their homeland. After WWII, that was an awful exercise, particularly for many people sent back to the Soviet bloc but also for others who were sent back to other homelands where things had changed since they left and they were now seen as having been on the wrong side or having done the wrong thing.
Reparations is financial or other (such as Stalin using German POW’s for a decade or so after the war as slave labour) compensation for war damage.
So we can give them all that Marshall Plan booty, eh? (or those tens of thousands of trucks that were the backbone of the Soviet logistical system)
That’s a laughable assertion, and one contradicted by actual history…
I don’t disagree. They were targeting workers, as was the USAAF albeit on a smaller scale…
We can make a circular argument on this all day. But the fact is that strategic bombing was the only means in which the British could initially and effectively fight Germany. The Bombing of Dresden was the culmination of this policy (even after they had rebuilt their land forces), and while I find it morally objectionable, it was technically legal under the laws of warfare. It was a defended city, although I’ve read it’s defenses were reduced because many of the 88s had been taken to the front for use as anti-tank guns.
But I find many arguments against Bomber Harris, who was by all means a ruthless bastard that was shunned by society after the war, to be a little disingenuous when not balanced against the cumulative brutality exercised by all nations and all sides of the conflict. And the Red Army did benefit from it, and I’m not sure I recall any moral aggrandizing coming out of Moscow from it until long after the War was over. And honestly, I think it was more an expression of the fear of US air power more than it was any genuine sort of actual moral outrage. In hindsight, the killing of 30,000+ people almost seems like a small affair, quite sadly…
Hi Nick;)
Really a such luaghtable assertion?
I don’t think so firstly coz we know for sure that American property in Germany were not bombed- thus the allies BOMBED it SELECTIVELY. Was it luaghtable assertion on you mind;)
Second - the Marshal plan was MAINLY aimed for the USA profit - to get the Europe credits for bying the American goods.
This fact helped the USA economy get rich and avoid the post-war economic crisys.
Shortly speaking ,they spreaded it economical influence over the western Europe.
True, the Marshal credits helped the Europe for the first time- but IT WAS NOT INVESTITIONS- it was not aimed for the restruction and restore of European industrial power.
I 've read in one of the book ( westerr germany author) that the direct resault of the Marhall plan was that the most of European corporation got the new american masters. The Europe losed the controll for the manies of former its own plants and ets.
So the influece of Marshall plan was not strongly positive for the Europe - this helped the USA to spread its controll over European industry and economic and subdue it politically.
I do not say it was definitelly bad in the conditions of Cold war - but it had a other side - the pure american interests.
So i/m really do not see the reason why the USA/UK could not bombed out the Germnas industry in the last mounts of war- to liqudate the European competitors.
Considering the fact that in this last period of war all USA/UK/USSR war strategy was determined not as much the military goals as the political post war aims - this fact IMO could explain the sensless destruction of Germans cities in last months of war.
Cheers.
i/m always knew you assians are heat-loving molly-coddles;)
-3-4 C- it so terrible for the mid winter :)
Last winter in Krasnodar in january -35C we call it the “Germans dream in Russia”.
I’ll never forget the one of the man in forum INosmi.ru wrote last winter:
“Такие морозы зря пропадают - и как назло ни одного немца под Москвой”
“there is a such great frosts comes to nothing- damn, no one germans near the Moscow”
HE wrote it when in the Moscow was -42 C.
Cheers.
hmm mate i doubt the British peoples even knew what the Harris tactic mean in reality.
Also do not right after the war when the Britains has know about resault of firebombing - the political scandal had place in theBritain. Even the Churchill was forced get the distance form the Harris. Harris has beed the scapegoat.
Like it or not this policy played a part in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The associated loss of German lives was to be expected but hardly mourned by anyone on the Allied side during the war, including Josef Stalin who knew the Allied bombing campaign was diverting Luftwaffe attention from the Eastern front and impeding the ability of German industry to supply the German armed forces, which became critical to the German forces fighting in the East.
Mate sorry but i think you should agree the “diverting Luftwaffe attention” is a TOO SMALL what could add the tho greatest allies power USA and UK to the fight with Germans.
With such success i can tell you that the the Allies spend in vain the enourmous resourses trying to “Win the war” by the strategic bombing.
It is rarely mentioned roughly the same number of Soviet citizens were killed by Luftwaffe bombing raids as German civilians killed by the Allied strategic bombing offensive. Where are the shelves of books on the subject of the four days of Luftwaffe bombing raids against Stalingrad, killing 40,000 civilians, What about the 800,000 plus civilians of Leningrad killed by bombing shelling and siege? Other Soviet cities such as Minsk, Kiev Sebastapol suffered similar fates. Where are the mounds of books devoted to telling their story? True the conventions of war allow almost any tactic of destruction against a defended fortress town(as in Konigsberg) and the people within it once it has refused to surrender. But is such a thing on such a scale. morally less or more than the bombing of Dresden?
You perfectly right here Digger.
Nobody regreted for Germans in the 1943-45. Neither Stalin nor anybody in the USSR.
Right after the henocide in the East the Germans feels TOO SMALL on own skin.
The Nazy killed a millions of peoples- but have we the right to REPEAT their “great acheivements”?
What for ?
Sure i thankfull for the Harris - he forced the German population feel the terror- the TOO INSIGNIFICANT payback for the crimes in the East.
But i have to say the payback is not the GOAL for us right?( Or ain this way what are we better the Nazy right)
We have to win this war - as quick as well.
So from this perspective the Harris tactic was nothing more then slaughtering of the 600 000 of Germans for the 60 000 of Britains in the ww2.
Coz after all that i’ve learned fromt the firebombing - this did not helped as much as it try to present today.
The most sensless firebombing were in the LAST MOUNTH of the war. There were a some of the cities except Dresden:
Bombing of Mainz — 27 February 1945
Bombing of Würzburg — 16 March 1945
Bombing of Hildesheim — 23 March 1945
I/m strongly doubt that cities had a military meaning for the collapsed Germany.
Remember by this stage of the war Hitler had washed his hands of the German people, and yet the German people as much as they suffered under bombing and the deprivation it caused, did not rise up against the very regime and man who had abandoned them. As far as the British, the Americans and the Soviets fighting against Nazi Germany at this stage of the war there was a common purpose-the destruction of the enemy until the terms of unconditional surrender were met. If this did not happen, then Germany would be destroyed and if need be so would it’s people. A sad fact but true and ratified by ALL the Allied partners.
.
Not Germany would be destroed but Nazy regime and Germans military forces.
I hope you do not with to destroy the whole state - you are not Nazy right;)
The main task ol of us was to crush the Nazism - or to help Germans to do it themself ( to make the upheaval and finished the Hitler as they try to do in aug 1944).
But you right the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” made then fatal ( like and Japanes).
But this is the whole other thread;)
Mate, it’s not all beer and skittles down here. 3 to 4 C (NOT -3 to -4C - – way too cold for us) wasn’t mid-winter. It’s a lot colder in mid-winter. I’ve actually been in places in mid-winter where it was maybe -1 to -2C at not much above sea level. Or maybe not, because it was Fahrenheit then and I don’t know what 28 to 30F is in C.
It strikes me that there is a remarkable coincidence in the facts that, depending upon alcohol content, vodka (commonly known as ‘rocket fuel’ among my older generation down here who viewed any spirit that wasn’t rum as rocket fuel) freezes at anything up to -40C and beer freezes not much beyond -1C. Could there be greater evidence of man’s ability to adapt to his environment?
Harris seemed pretty dumb and stubborn to me.
He failed, or refused to admit rather, that German nightfighters were easily homing on to Monica with their Flensburg FuG 227, one of the first RWRs, even when the evidence was overwhelming.
Common sense would have told anyone that it was stupid to use an active tail warning radar, which could easily be detected and was pretty much useless from the countless false alarms of other friendly bombers all around it anyway.
Monica was probably responsible for more losses in bombers and aircrew lives than any other device.
And he refused again to acknowledge that the German fighters were attacking from below with their angled cannons, let alone direct the installation of ventral sighting domes and defensive guns, when the evidence finally became irrefutable.
His stupidity and stubborness certainly caused a good proportion of the 55,000 lives lost.
Maybe so, but it is unarguable that without him there would never have been an effective bomber command. Harris inherited a command that was probably losing more aircrew through accidents than they were killing Germans, and turned it into a weapon that could destroy whole cities in a single night. That is a colossal achievement by anybody’s standards.
I think you’re also being rather harsh with the “stupidity” arguament. Both of those examples are cases where the evidence as available to him was very much more limited than that available to you now and which you are basing your decisions on. Furthermore, they are actually pretty minor matters that would be delegated to specialists within his staff - he would take and act on their advice in these matters.
You’re ignoring some of his real strategic blunders like the battle of Berlin, while glossing over cases where he got things very, very right - the introduction of Window, H2S, 1,000 bomber raids and intruder Mosquitoes being four that spring to mind. In each case he was right and the received wisdom from on high was against him.