Skip to comments.Harry the Nazi: a defence of the idiot prince
Posted on 01/13/2005 5:47:48 PM PST by veronica
click here to read article
You gotta hand it to the Nazis. They did have some pretty sharp looking uniforms.
You are correct about the accidental bombing of some British citizens by Germans. The Germans did not intend to start a terror-bombing campaign against civilians. The Germans viewed the purposeful bombing of Berlin by the British as outrageous. After Dresden, Hitler wanted to escalate by using chemical weapons (gas) but even Keitel talked him out of that...........AMDG&BVMH
I wrote the folloewing summary about the origin of World War II terror bombing in the Western Theater for another thread a while back.
The targeting of civilians as a strategic objective in the World War II Western European Theatre had a rather absurd and tragic beginning.
At the start of the war, both sides carefully avoided civilian centers although collateral damage was seen as an unfortunate consequence of aerial bombing. During the Battle of Britain, during the night of 23 August 1940, a dozen German bombers made a navigational error and dropped their bomb loads in the center of London rather than on the oil farms and factories that they were ordered to hit. The British believed that this attack was deliberate and, the next evening, 81 R.A.F. bombers targeted civilian targets in Berlin. After a few more such raids, the Germans retaliated with a massive night bombing raids on London. Ironically, the switch from R.A.F. targets to civilian targets took pressure off the R.A.F. and eventually lead to the Luftwaffes defeat in the Battle of Britain.
After this series of events, the genie was out of the bottle and each side, to the best of its ability, targeted each others civilian population centers with whatever means were available to it. The Allies firebombed cities. The Germans, never having developed adequate four engine bombers to match the Allied bomber capabilities, eventually resorted to the V-1 and V-2 terror weapons.
Each side truly believed that, by causing massive civilian casualties, the other side would surrender. In reality, conventional bombing never achieved that kind of shock value which was only achieved with the advent of the atomic bomb. More civilians died in one Tokyo fire-raid than at Hiroshima.
After the war, the morality of massive conventional bombing of civilians came into question. It is always easier to ponder such questions with 20/20 hindsight than during the passions of a World War. The British, it seems, did not feel very comfortable with what had occurred. While all other British senior military leaders were lionized, Sir Arthur Bomber Harris of Bomber Command became somewhat of a quiet embarrassment just as Sir Douglas Butcher Haig had become after World War One. Both men were seen by many as having wrought much more death than was necessary to achieve victory.
Did the fire-bombings of the civilian populations of Dresden and Tokyo shorten the war by a single day? Most likely not.
Did the atomic bomb strikes end the war with Japan. Most certainly.
Massive conventional bombing of civilian populations of a determined enemy has been shown to be ineffective in achieving victory and most likely will not occur again. Nuclear strikes, however, are another matter. Hopefully, our progeny will never have to see that genie come out of its bottle.
Why should this surprise anyone? The British Royal Family ARE GERMANS!
You don't find post 2 amusing, yet you take the time to post this amusing article? I find that amusing.
"I was expectly more of a manly-man type boot".
You mean a Jack-boot, by chance?
I had always understood that Dresden was a retaliation for the German bombing of Coventry, which had no military targets and was fairly far removed from any. (The account I dimly recall didn't indicate whether the German raid on Coventry was an error of some sort or deliberate.)
Thanks, Poly, for your historical perspective . . .
When I edited that thing, I meant for the boot to represent Lady Liberty. Just so everyone understands.
Key elements are - started by mistake, once started - unremitting, not (then) limited to one side or the other, horrible as precedent; and still with us today.
Harry resembles his uncle, Earl Spencer, quite a lot. Much more than the Hewitt character. Here's a link to a photo of Spencer:
I don't know how to post photos, but it would be interesting to see Spencer alongside the photos you posted of Harry & Hewitt.
Fortunately, the citizens of Coventry and Dresden are in recent decades in solidarity because of their mutual suffering, even agreeing not to count bodies to see which city suffered most. . .
A "purpose" I have also seen was to use Dresden to convince the Russians of what the Allies could do. By then, the thought was, the USSR could extend its march to threaten the West. Better to fry Dresden, to put the Ruskies on notice . . . [Personally, I don't buy that logic . . .]
In any event, the fire-bombing of Dresden was tragic beyond belief. Thousands of refugees fleeing the Soviet Army in the German east went to Dresden precisely because it was seen to be a "free" city. It's famed historic architecture and the city's decision not to militarize made it a logical refuge, which the Germans did not think the Allies would "sink" to bombing . . .
Oh, everyone understands, all right - that boot is so gay!
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
"and many Indian pundits thought the right turning swastika would doom the Germans in which they were correct."
LoL!! That and the Navajo code-breakers (or did they only work against the Japanese codes?)
"Navajo code-breakers "
correction: code-talkers not code-breakers
he's got the dad's red hair, too
You'd think I would have won over veronica with that one...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.