Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Germans call Churchill a war criminal (HOLD MEIN BIER...YET AGAIN)
The Daily Telegraph ^ | November 19, 2002 | Kate Connolly

Posted on 11/18/2002 5:07:02 PM PST by MadIvan

was effectively a war criminal who sanctioned the extermination of Germany's civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities, an article in the country's biggest-circulation newspaper claimed yesterday.

You have some bloody nerve, Fritz. Perhaps we should ask the Jews what they think of you getting all huffy like this? - Ivan

In an unprecedented attack on Allied conduct during the Second World War, the tabloid Bild has called for recognition to be given to the suffering inflicted on the German population during the strategic air campaign of 1940-45.

The suffering of the population in London is far more relevant. After all, the citizens of London didn't vote in Hitler. Same goes for Jewish civilians in the occupied countries the Germans brutally slaughtered - Ivan

The newspaper's campaign, provoked by a new German history of the bomber offensive, breaks six decades of virtual silence on the subject, and is being seen as the latest manifestation of a belief among Germans that they too were victims of the war - albeit a war started by their country.

The newspaper is serialising Der Brand (The Fire: Germany Under Bombardment 1940-45) by the historian Jorg Friedrich, which claims to be the most authoritative account of the bombing campaign so far.

Mr Friedrich claims the British government set out at the start of the Second World War to destroy as many German cities and kill as many of their inhabitants as possible. Civilian deaths were not collateral damage, he says, but rather the object of the exercise. He argues that Churchill had favoured a strategy of attacking the civilian population centres from the air some 20 years before Hitler ordered such raids.

Britain's war leader is quoted during the First World War as saying: "Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population."

Friedrich goes on to quote Churchill defending the morality of bombing: "Now everyone's at it. It's simply a question of fashion - similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."

Der Brand is far removed from the dry style of most German histories, and is filled with emotive accounts of the horrors of bombing, but carries few references to the man who brought retribution on Germany, Adolf Hitler.

Friedrich argues that the Allied policy of seeking to break German morale through bombing proved mistaken, the attacks merely serving to weld together the German population.

The debate is certain to anger those in Britain who see the strategic air campaign as a necessary evil.

The British, led by Sir Arthur Harris, C-in-C Bomber Command, were the leading proponents of "night area bombing", involving the systematic destruction of German industrial capacity and housing. The policy resulted in the laying to waste of city after city, including Hamburg, Cologne and Dresden, and the deaths of some 635,000 Germans.

The policy was to some extent forced on the RAF by the failure of daylight operations against pinpoint targets early in the war. It also reflected the fact that, for much of the conflict, bombing was the only method by which Britain could attack Germany.

German raids on Britain in the Blitz of 1940-41 were seen to have freed the British from the obligation not to attack civilian centres.

The serialisation of the book will furnish the far-Right in Germany with arguments to back its revisionist claims. It is also likely to overshadow recent reconciliation attempts between Britain and Germany over the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 in which tens of thousands died.

In a symbolic sign of friendship, British businesses have paid into a fund to reconstruct the Frauenkirche or Church of Our Lady which was destroyed in the raid and is set to be reopened in 2006.

Yesterday Antony Beevor, the British historian and author of the bestselling Berlin: The Downfall, 1945, criticised the German claim that Britain's war of attrition was unnecessarily brutal. "The trouble is this argument is removed from the context that they were the ones who invented terror bombing," he said, referring to German attacks on Coventry, Rotterdam and Warsaw.

"They literally obliterated whole cities and that certainly preceded what the British did," he said. "What we did was more terrifying and appalling, but it was a natural progression in this war.

"One can certainly debate the whole morality of bombing, but for Germans to say Churchill was a war criminal is pushing it a bit," he said.

Friedrich, 58, said his two years of research prompted him to change his views radically on the Allied bombing.

"Previously it appeared to me to be a just answer to the crimes of the Third Reich, but I've since changed my mind," he said. "Until the Second World War there was a common consensus that the massacre of civilian populations was illegal."

For the past year Germans on both the Left and Right have been locked in a new and intense debate about the war and their role as its victims as well as perpetrators. The debate was sparked by Gunther Grass, the Nobel prize winner, in a novel fictionalising the wartime account of a passenger ship torpedoed by the Soviet navy killing thousands of Germans on board.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Germany; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: barfalert; churchill; germany; hitlerwasbadbut; uk; winston
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-188 next last
To: MadIvan
There's absolutely nothing in this world I despise more than a sore loser.
161 posted on 11/19/2002 1:17:01 PM PST by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
...the Loyalists which received help and backing from Stalin. I'm Catholic, and am not fond of how the Loyalists would set nuns on fire.

Good point. But not all of the anti-Franco forces were Loyalists/Communists, or were supported by the USSR. Remember the POUM which George Orwell fought alongside? They were anti-Soviet and anti-Franco, since they were anarchists. Anarchism would have been preferable to fascism or Soviet Socialism IMO, since its a more puritanical form of libertarianism. But of course the POUM were slaughtered by Franco and the NKVD, along with Spain's chances for democracy and freedom before Franco's death in '75.

162 posted on 11/19/2002 1:28:19 PM PST by David Hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: David Hunter
Careful, POUM was in favour of anarcho-syndicalism, which was just as bad as Communism and placed as much emphasis on "class struggle".

You had the choice between the lesser of two evils in that war. Had I been Spanish, my preference would have been to leave. As an Englishman, my preference would be not to fight in that war at all.

Regards, Ivan

163 posted on 11/19/2002 1:33:40 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Convenient lapse of memory over on the continent, eh?

The Germans should've never targeted London; it was a foolish change in tactics (though fortunate for the R.A.F.). Beyond that, the retaliation was severe and entirely appropriate.

I'm pleased that Tony Blair presented President Bush with a bust of Churchill. I believe it is an inspiration there in the Oval Office during these trying times.

164 posted on 11/19/2002 1:33:55 PM PST by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
After reading "Enemy at the Gates", "Ghost Soldiers", seeing the recent responses of the German press, politicians ans public, and now this - we NEVER should have allowed those people to tear down the Berlin Wall.

I hope we NEVER allow the Japanese to have another military establishment

I think there is a defective gene in many Germans. It is activated when they are in an all-German environment. German-Americans seem normal and fine - look at Eisenhower and Schwartzkopf. But put them all together in one bunch and something goes kaput.

They are almost as bad as the French. Ingratitude is a worse offense than mass insanity.
165 posted on 11/19/2002 1:34:21 PM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muleboy
Germany "loses" the war, spent it's U.S. aid wisely, and is now set to command a European Union, of which "Great" Britain will be a subservient part.

Kinda hard to be a ruler of the EU when you've got the Americans occupying your nation backed up with several hundred nuclear weapons.

166 posted on 11/19/2002 1:42:17 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Careful, POUM was in favour of anarcho-syndicalism, which was just as bad as Communism and placed as much emphasis on "class struggle".

Alright, they didn't believe in capitalism, but they didn't believe in statism or totalitarianism either. They were really libertarian socialists. But they were still better than the NAZI backed fascists or the USSR backed loyalists, since they were democratic. But you're right, for most moderate/conservative Spanish people leaving would have been the best choice. The problem was the Spanish Civil war was just a proxy conflict between NAZI Germany and the USSR, and so no home-grown movement could have made a difference. That's why Orwell went there, to defend democracy in a country where un-democratic foreign powers were backing their political allies in order to turn Spain into their puppet.

167 posted on 11/19/2002 2:04:28 PM PST by David Hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The... turning pt!
168 posted on 11/19/2002 4:15:24 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
My observations were limited in scope to the air battle for Britain and, of course, did not apply to the whole war.

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading the thread.

169 posted on 11/20/2002 1:37:12 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
recognition to be given to the suffering inflicted on the German population during the strategic air campaign of 1940-45.
There is plenty of room for criticism of the conduct of nations in that period, and in the time leading up to it.
Japanese wholesale attrocities in China
Nazi bombing and murder camps
Soviet gulags and show trials
FDR conning America into fighting for Stalin.
Yes, and Bomber Harris, too.
Churchill comes out far better than the rest, but it does have to be said that Harris is a blot on his record as well. At least Churchill was trying to prevent the Cold War; FDR got really gung ho about fighting only when Hitler invaded the USSR. And intended to confer with Stalin without Churchill! Which would have brought down the Churchill government, I make no doubt.

The really bad decision was the FDR "unconditional surrender" policy, which lashed all Germany to the mast of Naziism. How much worse could restoring the status-quo-ante of the WWI Armistace have been than the bipolar Cold War? And how many lives would have been saved by a treaty restoring that status??


170 posted on 11/20/2002 2:51:51 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
Anyway folks like you seem to be the new masterrace and willing to split blood all over the world. In 2001+ US is not the saver but the offender.

Let`s hope there will be some nations who will free USA from this abyss.
171 posted on 01/02/2003 3:47:45 AM PST by Truck Wu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; dighton; general_re
"The debate was sparked by Gunther Grass, the Nobel prize winner, in a novel fictionalising the wartime account of a passenger ship torpedoed by the Soviet navy killing thousands of Germans on board."

The sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff was a maritime disaster of the first water, but there was nothing either illegal or particularly surprising about it. It was not a hospital ship ... it was not a protected neutral. It was a ship under the control of the German military and a legitimate target. The Germans are just lucky that they surrendered before the A-bomb became an operational option for the Allies.


172 posted on 01/02/2003 4:02:04 AM PST by BlueLancer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
This great photo of Churchill has a funny history. Churchill had just finished addressing the Canadian Parliament and was walking down the hall when the photographer asked to take his picture. Churchill, annoyed, agreed but demanded he make it quick. The shot was set up in about 2 seconds and the glower was for the photographer, not Hitler. Yet, it became the most famous
Churchill photo. The photographer, whose name escapes me, recently died.
173 posted on 01/02/2003 4:09:23 AM PST by jalisco555
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Bump
174 posted on 01/02/2003 4:13:25 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xp38
If you think Saint Jack was man of the century, you're still immature.
175 posted on 01/02/2003 5:12:57 AM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MWS
One and only one word for Churchill: Indomitable.
176 posted on 01/02/2003 5:44:34 AM PST by ricpic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

177 posted on 01/02/2003 5:50:19 AM PST by jws3sticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArcLight; jalisco555; BlueLancer; general_re; aculeus; MadIvan; All
Churchill had just delivered his speech containing the quip “some chicken, some neck” to the Canadian Parliament on December 30 1941. He was walking into the Speaker’s Chamber, arm in arm with the Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King, when the photographer flicked on his lights. “Two minutes for one shot, and I mean two minutes for one shot,” growled the great man as he lit a cigar.

Karsh, however, did not want to photograph the Prime Minister with this already familiar prop. He held out an an ashtray, but Churchill continued to smoke. Undeterred, the photographer, muttering “forgive me, sir”, swiftly stepped forward and removed the cigar from the prime ministerial lips

“By the time I got back to my camera,” he later recalled, “he looked so belligerent he could have devoured me.” In an instant, Karsh had captured Churchill’s furious expression on film.

-- Yousuf Karsh obituary, The Telegraph.


178 posted on 01/02/2003 5:50:35 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

179 posted on 01/02/2003 5:52:49 AM PST by jws3sticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Reread my post carefully. Note the date that Winston Churchill passed away (January 24 1965)in comparison to the assassination of JFK (November 22 1963). The headline was in reference to Churchill.
180 posted on 01/02/2003 6:01:11 AM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-188 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson