of
have
😉
Comparing strategic bombing with mass genocide?
Well the British are experts at both, so well positioned to make the comparison.
Did we defeat them or did they defeat themselves?
They were defeated by the economic might of the USA. They had to spend so much of their GDP on weapons to keep up with NATO, their economy collapsed.
Invading Russia, well what could possibly go wrong there?
Napoleon and Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons.
What would we have replaced them with? What gave the UK the right to determine who ruled the countries of the world?
The Soviets were seen as a threat to Western Democracy. The USSR wasn't a very pleasant place to live. I have just come back from a job in Szczcein, Poland, the memory of the Soviet era is still very real.
Or are we going to re-write that as well?
Would it of made more sense to of dealt with it in 1945?
😆 you talking about nuking the shit out of them? Cause that's the only way it would have been possible to beat the Soviets.
Or are we going to re-write that as well?
Again still not seeing a rewrite just an assessment of what happened,
Back to the Op:
Ms Rm who is a German.. suggests that people wouldnt know what it was and think it was a decoration... she wouldnt take offence either..
But, she is from a bit of Germany so close to the Swiss border it was too risky to bomb incase a stray went across the Rhine.... but they did have a mahoosive rail gun that aparently could hit bits of Paris, hidden in a railway tunnel.
The poppy was chosen because poppies grew in profusion on the battlefields of the first world war. Poppies thrive on disturbed ground. It got rebooted to use the modern vernacular for the second world war although there was a lot less churning up of mud. Now it has become a bit of a "heroes" thing, like the celebration of Wooten Basset, with reactionary overtones imho. I'm of the opinion that we let it go now that WW1 is history. It doesn't really serve as a reminder of the consquences of modern warfare.
The question is what you (one) is saying by wearing it, particularly wearing it abroad. Presumably you are trying to tell people something, maybe virtue signalling (sorry). The Germans have taken a non-militaristic approach on board rather better than us, so it seems unnecessary if not provocative to be wearing a poppy over there. Keep that sort of thing for football matches.
Germans have taken a non-militaristic approach on board rather better than us, so it seems unnecessary if not provocative to be wearing a poppy over there. Keep that sort of thing for football matches.
+1 from me. The modern Germany has a lot of "lessons" from the war structurally built in.
The Germans have taken a non-militaristic approach on board rather better than us
The Germans were forced to take a non-militaristic approach.
so it seems unnecessary if not provocative to be wearing a poppy over there.
HTF could wearing a poppy in Germany be considered provocative?
Keep that sort of thing for football matches.
What "sort of thing" is that?
What “sort of thing” is that?
fantasising about nuking the soviets?
maybe virtue signalling
That is exactly what wearing a poppy is. I can show my support for something by giving money and remembering etc,. but I don't need others to know that. Wear a poppy by all means but don't pretend it is anything else.
fantasising about nuking the soviets?
That's exactly what our then Prime Minister wanted to do.
That’s exactly what our then Prime Minister wanted to do.
Doesn't make it less of a fantasy, or a good idea. It would have been a terrible idea and resulted in the annihilation of millions of people. Which is what you wee objecting too earlier.
You do all know that the OP read a link about 8 posts in, was thankful for it, and has decided not to wear a poppy while in Germany...yeah? 😉
fantasising about nuking the soviets?
That’s exactly what our then Prime Minister wanted to do.
'our' prime minster! 😆 such a brit! you weren't even born! 😆
I’d be embarrassed if my people had built factories that were used to murder millions of men, women and children.
Check out what's happening in Yemen right now, where are the arms we sell to Saudi Arabia being used? Are you ashamed?
When you look back on the age of Empire’s, the UK actually did a better job than most.
I don't know where to start on this one, better is a relative term among the 4 or 5 countries who were responsible
Doesn’t make it less of a fantasy, or a good idea. It would have been a terrible idea and resulted in the annihilation of millions of people. Which is what you wee objecting too earlier.
Quote the post where I said it was a good idea?
Can I assume this is the annual “fight about the poppy” thread then?
Well it will be won’t it? Every bloody year we get it.
I wear a yellow poppy in remembrance of last years "Great STW Poppy Battle" casualties.
Comparing strategic bombing with mass genocide?
Let's not pretend that our bombing was always strategic.
Visited the Schindler factory in Krakow today.
Puts our silly poppy arguments into perspective, tbh.
When you look back on the age of Empire’s, the UK actually did a better job than most. However, as LP Hartley said,“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” It’s impossible to look at things from 200 years ago in a modern context.
Some of the people who were both perpetrators and victims of The Holocaust are still alive. It’s not ancient history.
Errrr Mau Mau....hello....we were putting people in internment camps and killing them immediately after world war 2.
Also, we had a very "hostile environment" policy towards Jews during WW2 and turned a lot of them away.
Don't pretend we fought ww2 out of anything but national self interest, the "just war" was something concocted after we realised the full horror of the holocaust and after we felt bad about how the centuries of our own antisemitism contributed to it.
Germany internalised and learnt from it's mistakes, it's clear from Brexit that Britain hasn't.
No country in the world has cultivated arrogance the way Britain has. But the sad truth is: The former global power can't even find its way to the door without tripping over its feet.
Nobody will feel offended. Maybe some people will even know what it stands for and feel ashamed that a wealthy country would leave the care for and rehabilitation of its veterans to charity.
Don’t pretend we fought ww2 out of anything but national self interest,
What should've happened then? Should Britain have kept out of it & waited to see which other countries were invaded?
In late 1938, Britain attempted to appease Germany and avoid another world war by signing the Munich Pact. This gave Germany "permission" to invade the contested Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. When Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later, it was clear that this attempt at appeasement did not work.
http://www.worldwar2history.info/in/Britain.html
Maybe some people will even know what it stands for and feel ashamed that a wealthy country would leave the care for and rehabilitation of its veterans to charity.
Exactly. The fact we need charities for this, charities for elderly care etc. is not something to wear a badge about
Let’s not pretend that our bombing was always strategic.
Do you understand what "strategic" means?
The carpet bombing of cities was always strategic.
Also, we had a very “hostile environment” policy towards Jews during WW2 and turned a lot of them away.
Evidence please.
Don’t pretend we fought ww2 out of anything but national self interest
Of course. The self interest in not being conquered by Nazi's and the destruction of Western democracy.
What would of been the "correct" reaction? Should we of made peace in 1940?
the “just war” was something concocted after we realised the full horror of the holocaust and after we felt bad about how the centuries of our own antisemitism contributed to it.
Ridiculous statement.
The full horror of the Holocaust was not realised until 1945.
The "just war" was not concocted. Go and read some real history. The attitude to the War in 1940 compared to 1939 was massive.
You do realise what the German army did in 1940?
You do understand what the ambitions of Germany were?
evidence please
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices
According to Whitehall And The Jews, 1933-1948 (Cambridge University Press), Louise London’s definitive account of British immigration policy and the Holocaust, “The process...was designed to keep out large numbers of European Jews - perhaps 10 times as many as it let in.” Around 70,000 had been admitted by the outbreak of the war, but British Jewish associations had some half a million more case files of those who had not.
Should have we made peace in 1940? Of course not - but don't as I said - don't pretend that we were fighting out of anything but self interest. We weren't fighting to save the Jews in 1940, we weren't fighting because Hitler was a dictator - we were fighting because Germany threatened our own position in the world order.
We weren’t fighting to save the Jews in 1940
Nobody has ever claimed that we were.
we weren’t fighting because Hitler was a dictator
Yes we were. Did you know that a democracy has never declared war on another democracy?
we were fighting because Germany threatened our own position in the world order.
Threatened our position? You mean that they intended to enslave us? Do you know what they did in occupied Europe?
Are you suggesting that going to War was wrong?
Errrr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies
Threatened our position? You mean that they intended to enslave us? Do you know what they did in occupied Europe?
Are you suggesting that going to War was wrong?
No - just don't pretend that we are somehow morally superior to Germany, at least they have come to terms with their past - even if, as you say, they have been forced to. It's quite clear that we have not come to terms with ours.
No – just don’t pretend that we are somehow morally superior to Germany,
I don't think anyone is, & in reality the majority of Germans before WW2 weren't Nazis. but Adolf promised them all kinds when in some more reality he fancied a bit of world domination.
There was an enlightening comment by Albert Speer, Essel -
Hatred of the Jews was Hitler's motor and central point perhaps even the very element which motivated him. The German people, the German greatness, the Empire, they all meant nothing to him in the last analysis. For this reason, he wished in the final sentence of his testament, to fixate us Germans, even after the apocalyptic downfall in a miserable hatred of the Jews...When speaking of the victims of the bomb raids, particularly after the massive attacks on Hamburg in Summer 1943, he again and again reiterated that he would avenge these victims on the Jews; just as if the air-terror against the civilian population actually suited him in that it furnished him with a belated substitute motivation for a crime decided upon long ago and emanating from quite different layers of his personality. Just as if he wanted to justify his own mass murders with these remarks.
I suspect all he fancied was to kill as many Jews as possible.
Do you understand what “strategic” means?
The carpet bombing of cities was always strategic.
I look forward to your evidence for this assertion.
we weren’t fighting because Hitler was a dictator
Yes we were.
I look forward to your evidence for this assertion
He's being pedantic Ransos - technically strategic bombing covers bombing with the intent to demoralize - however, as far back as WW2 this had already been coined "terror bombing".
in reality the majority of Germans before WW2 weren’t Nazis. but Adolf promised them all kinds when in some more reality he fancied a bit of world domination.
Cor, the brexit parallels 😀
The carpet bombing of cities was always strategic
Yes, it meant terrorism, which is exactly what it was.
He’s being pedantic Ransos – technically strategic bombing covers bombing with the intent to demoralize – however, as far back as WW2 this had already been coined “terror bombing”.
Then any kind of bombing is strategic.
"What was our strategy?"
"To incinerate 25,000 civilians and fleeing refugees while not targeting military or industrial infrastructure"
Back on topic.............
You can control your actions but you can't control how people react to them. So you can wear a poppy with all the right intentions (remembering the overall futility of war for example), but you can't then play the "I'm sorry for any offence caused but not my own actions" card if someone else chooses to view your symbol as a memorial of your sides victory over them. So if you don't want to offend anyone, best not to do it.
Just like you can say the bombing of Dresden was "strategic", it was, but it's not as a synonym for precision,
“What was our strategy?”
To terrroise, de-house and kill the workers that provided the weapons for their armed forces.
Read up on the Hamburg Firestorm in 1943. Absolutely horrific. However, it did disrupt industrial output and divert valuable resources to air defence.
Luckily for the UK, the Germans didn't have the same capability in 1940.
The Germans invented modern strategic bombing at Guernica in 1937. The UK and USA perfected it.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind"
Fair enough I say.
I agree with the fair enough statement, it was. Fighting dirty and and crossing over the line of what is reasonable in normal times was required. More recognistion and analysis of that is much more preferable to the miltaristic nonsense attached to the poppy.
Fair enough I say.
The argument that we did it, because they started it - falls down when you consider that the allies or nations associated with the allies, then used strategic bombing against North Koreans, the Vietnamese and the Cambodians - to level cities and civilian populations aka terror bombing. Neither of these countries ever engaged in strategic bombing against any allied nation.
These events are currently filed under
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/I_Can%27t_Believe_It%27s_Not_Terrorism
It's all a bit -
Fair enough I say.
I don't think bombing innocent civilians could ever be described as fair could it?
If you read that article on page 1 it talks about the ways different nationalities view their armed forces, their personnel and their conflicts as either distinct entities or as a a collective whole.
Personally I don't believe that the German population should have been collectively punished for the acts of the Nazi party, and I don't believe that the german soldier or bomber crew was necessarily any more complicit in their actions than ours. It's all very well putting up propaganda posters saying 'our brave boys are out there avenging the bombing of Coventry / Dresden', the reality was in a lot of cases they were one disobeyed order away from being shot for cowardice.
Some of the armed forces would have been genuine believers, others sucked in by the propaganda, and others there under duress.
Dehumanising and killing a group of people? Not just a Nazi thing.
The argument that we did it, because they started it –
We did it to defeat Germany.
We only had to do so as they were the aggressor.
Germany wanted to dominate Europe and parts of Asia, control all of the resources and enslave entire nations.
What is it with the hand wringers who make excuses for them and then spout crap about the evil that the British Empire did? Can the Third Reich really be compared to the British Empire?
No one has yet explained, even with the benefit of hindsight, what other options we really had apart from total war?
I once met a Mosquito pilot, really pleasant unassuming bloke, he told me about attacking German convoys and how they normally had around 20% losses on each sortie. I asked him how did he get back in the aircraft and take off, time after time, his answer was simple, to paraphrase, "we knew the job had to be done, if we didn't do it, who would?".
Truly humbling, that's why I wear a poppy, to remember the sacrifice made by all involved, including the ones that survived.
To say a poppy glorifies war is utter tosh.
What is it with the hand wringers who make excuses for them and then spout crap about the evil that the British Empire did? Can the Third Reich really be compared to the British Empire?
You know when you missed the point the fist time.
War is bad full stop, things were done that in the cold light of day were beyond lines. People justified these things to themselves at the time. What people are saying is we can look back at the conflict and not take sides and objectively analyse it.
Truly humbling, that’s why I wear a poppy, to remember the sacrifice made by all involved, including the ones that survived.
To say a poppy glorifies war is utter tosh.
But still people use the occasion to do that, bringing it back to us and them, saying who deserved it and who didn't. How morally we behaved and how we had no choice.
We did it to defeat Germany.
We only had to do so as they were the aggressor.
But then we went on to carpet bomb various brown people around the world, without that justification?
Can the Third Reich really be compared to the British Empire?
Pretty much, yes. The famines caused by the British in India alone, during the 19th century killed 30 million.
That puts Stalin and Hitler to shame.
The argument that we did it, because they started it – falls down when you consider that the allies or nations associated with the allies, then used strategic bombing against North Koreans, the Vietnamese and the Cambodians – to level cities and civilian populations aka terror bombing. Neither of these countries ever engaged in strategic bombing against any allied nation.
It's war, essentially when it comes to it, people will do what they think is necessary at the time. But carpet bombing is pure terrorism, nothing more. There's also an argument against the effectiveness of it. As really what stopped the germans, ultimately was the russian war for a the large part. And the japanese you can speculate if the russian invasion of china had and effect as much the nukes or not, but lets just say the japanese where able to withstand an awful lot of firebombing, and even then they had to be convinced to surrender after the nukes. And the vietmanese were able to withstand the americans..
It's interesting the modern term - rules of engagement, they only really apply when you've got superior strength, and even then in the case of vietnam, when that isn't enough, even then people will resort to mass murder.
It's all a shitfest and should not be glorified for one minute. But shit does indeed happen in war, ultimately there are no rules when it comes to it.
Can the Third Reich really be compared to the British Empire?
Pretty much, yes.
You really believe that?
The British have done some terrible things in the past.
However, nothing on the scale and with the pure evil intent that the Germans were guilty of in the 1930's and 40's.
