Bernie Ecclestone thinks Hitler got things done!

[Wildcat 10]

Current-day Britain is a bad example of it, though; politicians spend far more time arguing with each other about which one is the best of them, than they ever do actually running the country. Is that an inevitable consequence of any democracy, or is it peculiar to we Brits?

 

On the contrary, I don't think they allow enough argument internally within the parties themselves. It creates point scoring debates in the house divided down party lines rather than healthier cross party debates on the issues themselves.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Wildcat

[buck 11]

That makes no sense. If committing atrocities is acceptable, then there was no reason to go to war against Hitler in the first place. If it is not, then Dresden was a war crime.

 

 

Meanwhile, Ecclestone has been given space in the Times today to further explain what he actually meant: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6652501.ece

you had to have been there, which clearly you were not. I was, and lost my home in Tinsley. We went to war with Hitler to try and halt his domination of Europe. To demonize those who had to carry out total war, probably much against their natures, makes no sense either, iunless you're a conchie of course.

[HeadingNorth 11]

you had to have been there, which clearly you were not.

 

 

No, you don't have to have been there at all. Either an atrocity is acceptable, or it is not. You can't alter your opinion based on which side committed it.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

No, you don't have to have been there at all. Either an atrocity is acceptable, or it is not. You can't alter your opinion based on which side committed it.

 

WWII was the first total war. Germany, Italy and Japan were totalitarian states so the only way for the allies to fight them was to also to fight total war. This meant not only taking war to the nations armed forces, it also meant attacking the countries ability to wage war. Unfortunately, this put the countries population in the firing-line.

 

This is incomparable to trying to actually trying to wipe out a whole race of people.

[HeadingNorth 11]

WWII was the first total war. Germany, Italy and Japan were totalitarian states so the only way for the allies to fight them was to also fight total war. This meant not only taking war to the nations armed forces, it also meant attacking the countries ability to wage war.

 

 

The bombing of Dresden didn't achieve any of those aims. It was motivated purely by revenge. The other chap had that much right - "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind" .. and the politicians of the day were very clear about their motives. Stalling Germany's war effort was not among them.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

The bombing of Dresden didn't achieve any of those aims. It was motivated purely by revenge. The other chap had that much right - "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind" .. and the politicians of the day were very clear about their motives. Stalling Germany's war effort was not among them.

 

It doesn't matter if the aims were achieved or not, even though it is arguable; those were the aims.

 

Strategic bombing was not something that just happened at Dresden, it was always an idea that was building for years. The concept of "the bomber will always get through" was born years before Dresden, and as such the only defence against this idea was to threaten to bomb their cities in "revenge."

 

Dresden et al was just near the end of the journey that started with mechanised total war. Incidentally the end of this journey was the Mutually Assured Destruction situation that occurred from the 1950s to this present day.

[HeadingNorth 11]

It doesn't matter if the aims were achieved or not, even though it is arguable; those were the aims.

 

 

No they were not. The aim of bombing Dresden was to exact bloodthirsty revenge on a defeated country, and it served no other purpose. It was arguably the biggest military-based war crime of the entire six years.

 

You cannot justify it simply by arguing "it was us, not them, so that's okay." An atrocity is an atrocity no matter who commits it.

[Swan_Vesta 11]

Bernie Ecclestone has millions and millions and millions of pounds. He has the shonkiest haircut known to man.

 

He is not to be taken seriously.

[onetwo07 10]

No they were not. The aim of bombing Dresden was to exact bloodthirsty revenge on a defeated country, and it served no other purpose. It was arguably the biggest military-based war crime of the entire six years.

 

You cannot justify it simply by arguing "it was us, not them, so that's okay." An atrocity is an atrocity no matter who commits it.

 

You're right - it's fairly widely supposed that Dresden was revenge for Coventry. One of my old lecturers remarked that the bombing of Coventry is under-researched historically compared to most other British cities, and it is this link with Dresden that can be blamed (too many questions people don't like asking/don't fit the victor's narrative).

 

In no way does saying that defend the Nazi regime, nor does it signify me being a self-hating Brit. It's unequivocally a good thing that the Allies won the Second World War. That does not mean, however, that every event of the conflict should fit neatly into a simple good versus bad story, where questioning any aspect of Allied conduct becomes blasphemous.

Edited July 7, 2009 by onetwo07

[JFKvsNixon 11]

No they were not. The aim of bombing Dresden was to exact bloodthirsty revenge on a defeated country, and it served no other purpose. It was arguably the biggest military-based war crime of the entire six years.

 

Fair enough, this is your opinion and I disagree; repeating an opinion over and over again doesn't make it true though. I'd like see the reasons as to why you came to your conclusions.

 

As I have said in my opinion the strategic bombing offensive was born from the total war concept, where you not only attacked the countries armed forces, but you also attack the countries ability to wage war; and as such attacking the population was one way that was seen as maybe achieving these aims. Again I'd like to see the reasons as to why you think this theory is flawed.

 

 

You cannot justify it simply by arguing "it was us, not them, so that's okay." An atrocity is an atrocity no matter who commits it.

 

Where have I tried to justify it as you have claimed. All I stated it was that it was thought at the time that the only way to win a war against a totalitarian state is to wage total war. Strategic bombing was part of that total war. Whether it's aims were achieved or not is another argument.

[LukeD 10]

Of course you realise that he was 14, and all 14 year old boys in Germany HAD to join the Hitler Youth?

 

Yes, well aware. Having studied the period I can recommend Noakes and Pridham's Nazism 1919-1945 Volume 2: State, Economy and Society 1933-1939 for further reading. You neglected to mention that from the Hitlerjugend's formation in 1926 until March 1939 membership was actually optional.

[onetwo07 10]

Fair enough, this is your opinion and I disagree; repeating an opinion over and over again doesn't make it true though. I'd like see the reasons as to why you came to your conclusions.

 

As I have said in my opinion the strategic bombing offensive was born from the total war concept, where you not only attacked the countries armed forces, but you also attack the countries ability to wage war; and as such attacking the population was one way that was seen as maybe achieving these aims. Again I'd like to see the reasons as to why you think this theory is flawed.

 

 

 

 

Where have I tried to justify it as you have claimed. All I stated it was that it was thought at the time that the only way to win a war against a totalitarian state is to wage total war. Strategic bombing was part of that total war. Whether it's aims were achieved or not is another argument.

 

Killing 25000 - 40000 people in the German equivalent of Oxford or Cambridge, 12 weeks before the end of a war that was clearly won, is not, in my opinion, a necessary example of 'total war'. In fact in a strategic sense it is pretty much useless, but must have played well on the news reels at home by 'setting things straight' for what had gone before. If the war had still been a contest, in fact, the planes/bombs might well have been deployed in a more useful way militarily (ie. versus arnaments factories/airfields/industry).