What did the women do?
In addition to building the planes, women volunteer pilots also delivered them to squadrons. The work they did was very hazardous, flying brand new aircraft with potential manufacturing defects in all weathers with less than the recommended amount of crew in the case of larger aircraft and of course they were unarmed.
After the war a great many women pilots achieved a staggering amount of flying time on many different types of plane from single engined fighters to four engined bombers and were snubbed by the airlines after the war, many of which wrote back to fully qualified female pilot applicants and suggested they attend air stewardess courses.
The women of the day too were made of stern stuff.
The women of the day too were made of stern stuff.
This comment and others on the thread are a bit weird - do you really think that today's men and women would be any less capable of sacrifice if push came to shove?
Hels, there is a difference between death and casulty rates, but we are splitting hairs. I'd hate to think of the percentages on war memorials on any given england village green.
Seems hard to lable the RAF as war criminals and not the Luftwaffe.
Anyway, a memorial well over due.
PJM thanks for fleshing out my earlier comment. I was in a rush when I posted.
Targeting the local populace of a manufacturing plant could be considered legitimate as the workers are part of the production process.
Seems hard to lable the RAF as war criminals and not the Luftwaffe.
That's because you can't.
its a nice statue
and well deserved
my wifes grandad flew lncasters and came back very messed up- not sure if from the loss of friends or from knowing that theyd bombed so many innocents too
he was prone to bouts of depression and was a very hard man to live with by all accounts, a lot of bad blood in the family because of it
i suppose that counselling or whatever didnt really exist after the war id like to think that ex soldiers are better looked after now
do you really think that today's men and women would be any less capable of sacrifice if push came to shove?
Capable? No. But willing? Hmm. not so sure. I think a lot more people now lack the backbone to do what the Brits of 39-45 did.
Capable? No. But I think a lot more people now lack the backbone to do what the Brits of 39-45 did.
The UK started changing post WWI. The working class weren't up for sacrificing themselves to keep serving under the masters for the same. In essence it would be 'same old **** for us'. So come post-WWII people wanted better lives etc etc.
Would we blindly follow? NO. We are better now. We question, we demonstrate.
Capable? No. But willing? Hmm. not so sure. I think a lot more people now lack the backbone to do what the Brits of 39-45 did.
If you dropped them into it, perhaps not. But given a few years of tension, the rise of fascism on the continent, etc.?
Capable? No. But willing? Hmm. not so sure. I think a lot more people now lack the backbone to do what the Brits of 39-45 did.
Refusing to deliberately target civilians takes quite a bit of backbone...
I've no doubt that the people honoured did a very difficult and dangerous job, but I just don't consider dropping bombs on people's houses to be brave.
Would we blindly follow? NO. We are better now. We question, we demonstrate.
Bloody good job we weren't "better" then. We'd be saluting the fuhrer now.
[i]While I'm pretty much against having memorials to past glory's erected, particularly so long after the event, in this case it is fitting that the people involved should be remembered, they weren't the ones giving the orders, but many of them suffered the consequences.[/i]
FFS this memorial (and the majority of those raised for WW1 and then extended for WW2 do not 'glorify' war - have you actually looked/read them? Pretty much every village/town/city (even old company) has WW1 memorials - there is no glory in these!
One picked at random from google:
http://www.threetowners.com/images/WW2_Memorial.JP G"/> &w=614&h=529&ei=0oPtT8riFKbF0QW8yISFDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=316&vpy=173&dur=125&hovh=208&hovw=242&tx=138&ty=122&sig=101090050581490456565&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=154&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:90" rel="nofollow" >And Hora, please go back to deciding which bike you're next going to buy and never ride, stay off here.
I've no doubt that the people honoured did a very difficult and dangerous job, but I just don't consider dropping bombs on people's houses to be brave.
They didn't - all targets were technically speaking military, but obviously, given the technology of the day, that wasn't very realistic. Perhaps only the V1 and V2 attacks were deliberately targeted at civilians. (I'm not sure about the Japanese in China, though).
b r reel your neck in.
One of the main reasons we can luxuriate here and pontificate rightly or wrongly about this memorial is the very reason why it should exist. It should serve as a reminder of not to do it again on both sides. Unfortunately it may all go unheeded.
Would we blindly follow? NO. We are better now. We question, we demonstrate.
You really think the British (and German, French, whatever) populations were just sheep in the 30s?
You really [b]think[/b]
I think that's the problem.
Why are you twisting the context of my comment? (and taking the final line without reading PP's post and my post that followed).
Where did I say they were sheep? Back then our society was split firmly on divisions and status (more so than today); racial, class and sex. There wasn't the social freedoms that we have today, no welfare state and you were expected to do as told (or more so). Serve King and country, work in one job. Do as you are told.
Such is the way of STW. Bully those that don't follow your thought..
They didn't - all targets were technically speaking military, but obviously, given the technology of the day, that wasn't very realistic. Perhaps only the V1 and V2 attacks were deliberately targeted at civilians. (I'm not sure about the Japanese in China, though).
That's highly debatable - for example in Dresden it was the city centre that was targetted rather than military installations. There's little evidence that the attack had any significant effect on German military operations.
It's also argued that the Soviet attack in east Asia (which was purely military) did more to force Japan's surrender than the two atom bombs.
I'm not a historian, but I'm just trying to point out that the debate is far from settled.
Hora is thinking and articulating his points well - I never thought i would type that 😉
Serve King and country, work in one job. Do as you are told.
They had far higher morals than we do.
The collateral damage of the Ruhr valley I can understand as there were war production factories that were disrupted/destroyed. In addition any ball bearing/associated factories near towns etc.
However deliberate targeting I can't understand and nor could decades of UK governments afterwards.
repressed or do as you are told?They had far higher morals than we do.
[i]Be seen to do the right thing
Can't be seen to do that
Its not on[/i]
[i]The shame it'd bring [/i](if the neighbours etc saw).
Based on what others would think of you?
Don't rubbish our modern society. Its based on trust not being told to go to Church (expected to) etc.
Ok maybe alittle harsh but I don't think our modern society is 'wrong'. Thieving, prostitution etc still existed last century..
Where did I say they were sheep? Back then our society was split firmly on divisions and status (more so than today); racial, class and sex. There wasn't the social freedoms that we have today, no welfare state and you were expected to do as told (or more so). Serve King and country, work in one job. Do as you are told.
That's a massive exaggeration, and completely ignores the rise of the labour movement, the blackshirts, the differences of opinion within the major parties. Within all classes there were people who were for and against the war.
That's highly debatable - for example in Dresden it was the city centre that was targetted rather than military installations. There's little evidence that the attack had any significant effect on German military operations.
I'm not sure the city centre was deliberately targeted, but as I pointed out earlier there was no way to accurately target [b]anything[/b], which means what is now (delightfully) known as "collateral damage" was inevitable. (I really do recommend the podcast I linked to earlier, the history of how bombing cities came to be morally acceptable is gruesomely fascinating...)
Within all classes there were people who were for and against the war.
Granted, but it's not binary. Many of those who argue that the war was necessary in order to defeat facism (including me) also argue that "anything goes" isn't justifiable ethically. As has been said, the civilian bombings were highly controversial even at the time.
That's a massive exaggeration, and completely ignores the rise of the labour movement, the blackshirts, the differences of opinion within the major parties. Within all classes there were people who were for and against the war.
Agree, in part it is generalising. WWI a lesser extent were against 'war', more so post-WWII to today where we would recoil at even a fraction of previous bodycounts.
I'm not sure the city centre was deliberately targeted, but as I pointed out earlier there was no way to accurately target anything, which means what is now (delightfully) known as "collateral damage" was inevitable.
It would require a very charitable interpretation of events to accept that the RAF completely flattened a civilian area whilst simultaneously missing military targets (which apparently were not close to the city centre), and that this was "collateral damage". I'm quite sure that the city centre was targeted because it would've been an obvious landmark. In my view, it was either a sin of omission (failing to identify if there were military targets worth attacking in the centre) or commission (a deliberate act)
As Hora notes, a justification could be made for Hamburg due to its industrial infrastructure and port, but Dresden? I don't think so.
Don't rubbish our modern society.
Do you think we are socially responsible?
We're not.
Our culture has very few redeeming features.
We have kids killing each other on the streets. We have pregnant teenagers and STDs are rife (even with modern contraception). Greed is an accepted (even expected) defense. We have appallingly high crime and in particular sexual and violent crime. People barely know each other, even neighbours. It's completely anonymous. People are openly surly, if not hostile. We know for a fact that we're destroying the planet and are doing sweet FA about it. We're unhealthier than we've been since the plague!
So a few students go on marches to demonstrate once in a while. That only ends up in violence and looting.
Probably the only thing we have achieved to our credit(as you correctly point out) is in the field of equality.
Do you think we are socially responsible?
Would you care to guess what happened to the crime rate during the blitz?
Granted, but it's not binary. Many of those who argue that the war was necessary in order to defeat facism (including me) also argue that "anything goes" isn't justifiable ethically. As has been said, the civilian bombings were highly controversial even at the time.
Definitely, I certainly wouldn't argue against that.
more so post-WWII to today where we would recoil at even a fraction of previous bodycounts.
You're probably right, although there's a difference between a high body count when you're attacking Iraq (and haven't been directly attacked in return), and a high body count when it's Germany (and they've previously bombed you). In the second case I don't doubt for a second that our toleration for German deaths would be considerably higher.
Our culture has very few redeeming features.
We have kids killing each other on the streets. We have pregnant teenagers and STDs are rife (even with modern contraception). Greed is an accepted (even expected) defense. We have appallingly high crime and in particular sexual and violent crime. People barely know each other, even neighbours. It's completely anonymous. People are openly surly, if not hostile. We know for a fact that we're destroying the planet and are doing sweet FA about it. We're unhealthier than we've been since the plague!
Do you really believe all that rubbish???
All wrong is it mogrim? we live in paradise do we?
Would you care to guess what happened to the crime rate during the blitz?
I know exactly what happened to the crime rate during the blitz. People were being bombed.
wrecker your taking a rose-tinted view.
All the neighbours on my road know our names and give us Christmas cards every year. Thats central Manchester! Every area is different. Ever been into a rural pub where everyone seems to know each other?
Agree well overdue, I'm full of admiration for all of them
+1
souldrummer - Member
I am struggling to understand some of the comments on here.
+1
All wrong is it mogrim? we live in paradise do we?
No, but while most of the comments are technically correct, they ignore the context which is that most of them are a lot better now than they ever were - for example: "kids are killing each other on the streets" is true, but violent crime has been falling for years.
wrecker your taking a rose-tinted view.
Perhaps, and I can only speak from my experiences.
I certainly don't think that we've shaped our society as well as we should in 60 odd years.
but violent crime has been falling for years.
Crime stats are awful things. They change how they're calculated and reported every 10 minutes. I certainly don't remember as much violence being reported 20 years ago but again that's just my opinion.
Would we blindly follow? NO. We are better now. We question, we demonstrate.
WW2 came at probably the worst time for Britain, appeasement was not just about being unprepared with regards to technology,the Government genuinely were scared that the average man would refuse to go. WW1 was only 20 years previously,the first war that involved conscription.Whole communities had lost all the men because of policies like pals battalions.(google Accrington pals battalion) Yet they went, despite being far more aware of what war was like than we are. I think that in similar circumstances, WW2 being fought for very different reasons to WW1 remember,people would go.
I understand that the policy of bombing is one that is seen as dirty,but at the end of the day,the memorial is to the people who climbed into the planes despite seeing what the outcome was for a large % of their comrades.
I may be wrong here but I always thought the concentration on cities with manufacturing bases was intended to destroy the German war effort and simultaneously force the redeployment of men and materiel from the Eastern and Western Fronts. I believe for example, that vast numbers of fighters were withdrawn from both fronts to counter the bomber threat. This can only have helped the Allies in Normandy/France the low Countries and the Russians as they advance west.
By today's standards, the manner of waging war seems crude and heavy handed but it was what it was.
I know exactly what happened to the crime rate during the blitz.
Good. Then you'll agree that many people took the opportunity to behave in a greedy and socially irresponsible manner. Which refutes your argument than morals were innately superior to today.
they were undoubtably brave men and that's what the memorial is about - a salute to the fallen.
however, it doesn't mean that the bombing of civilians was ever acceptable. surely attacking factories, harbours and soldiers in the field would have been a better use of the resources? war is insane regardless of how it's carried out...
I may be wrong here but I always thought the concentration on cities with manufacturing bases was intended to destroy the German war effort
Not all of the targets had significant military or manufacturing infrastructure...
Which refutes your argument than morals were innately superior to today.
I disagree. The more difficult/arduous life is, the more difficult it is to make decisions based on morality.
I believe for example, that vast numbers of fighters were withdrawn from both fronts to counter the bomber threat
The attrition rate for German fighter pilots was very high due to the lack of training/putting new candidates through. Wierdly but the Luftwaffe collapsed mainly due to incompetence. Germany was mainly a 'land army'. 90% of all German combat loses were on the Eastern front. I only discovered that recently. A scary figure.
however, it doesn't mean that the bombing of civilians was ever acceptable. surely attacking factories, harbours and soldiers in the field would have been a better use of the resources?
Nice idea, but unfortunately that just wasn't possible - HE111s, Lancasters and B29s just didn't have the ability to accurately hit factories and harbours without massive damage to the surrounding areas - the accuracy of WWII bombers was measured in miles, not metres.
I was amazed by how much "heavy lifting" was done by the russians and chinese;
[img] 
[/img]
