[Closed] Proud men who were brave in a world that we would never understand

Yep, pretty shameful that it took this long.

For better or worse folk looked back at area bombing and found it a mite distasteful. However I cannot see where the difference lies between bombing from the air vs artillery flattening northern Europe in the latter stages of the war. This memorial is well overdue given that Churchill is regarded as a national hero and he was where the buck stopped. 55000 men lost flying these missions.

Long overdue indeed. A mate of mine's dad was in bomber command and still wont talk about it at all. I cannot even begin to imagine coping with that level of fatality.

My Dad was trained as rear gunner and was in a holding regiment waiting till it was his turn ,nerve wracking he told me , they got through rear gunners fast

At last a load of brave men and women get the recognition of a time in our collective existence that I find hard to get my head around.

Remind what did the women do ???

I once went paintballing, never again.
God knows what these guys must've been going through.
My Dad was with Coastal Command but I don't think he ever got shot at.

Very very brave fellas.

I am in no doubt that these were brave men but surely the same could be said for all pilots, gunners and bombardiers that fought and died for their respective countries. Still it is a shame Bomber Command hasn't been given the proper recognition until now. They say a week is a long time in politics, 67 years is a p*ss take.

What did the women do?

Built the planes, ran the factories, worked the farms.. basically pretty much everything on the home front as well as millitary work

Built the planes, ran the factories, worked the farms.. basically pretty much everything on the home front as well as millitary work

So basically everyone between 1939-1945 who was`nt in prison deserves a memorial ???

Built the planes, ran the factories, worked the farms.. basically pretty much everything on the home front as well as millitary work

And the survival rate for those women?

Bomber Command crews suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), the [u]highest loss rate of any major branch of the British armed forces[/u]. A further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. Bomber Command aircrew had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I.

I once went paintballing, never again.

LOL this initially came across as the most inappropriate reply in the history of STW, then I read on!

My late father-in-law served as air crew out in Burma, just wouldn't talk about it. What boils my p*ss is all this b*ll*cks about war crimes, how many German aircrew were tried for bombing Coventry, London, etc.?

My Grandpa failed his Radio operators exam and was given the option of being a rear gunner or going onto an air sea rescue launch. He chose air sea rescue and spent his war fishing trainee pilots of of the atlantic off of south africa, Lucky bastard.

One thing lots of people forget, or chose to ignore, is that as servicemen you aren't asked your opinion on whether to attack target X or not. You don't get a choice about it, you do as you're told, and quite rightly so. To blame the aircrew for choices not of their making is a little crass to says the least.

I can understand why some people might feel a bit uneasy about the bombing campaign- though I don't myself, just feels like handwringing. But what I can't understand at all is people who hold it against the crews. They deserve memorial and more.

Agree well overdue, I'm full of admiration for all of them, just wanted to say so before this topic goes downhill/gets closed.

One thing lots of people forget, or chose to ignore, is that as servicemen you aren't asked your opinion on whether to attack target X or not. You don't get a choice about it, you do as you're told, and quite rightly so. To blame the aircrew for choices not of their making is a little crass to says the least.

Who blames the aircrew ?
I ve heard and read harsh critism of both Harris and Churchill but never specific critism of the bomber crews themselves !

Who blames the aircrew ?

They were ignore by Churchill, refused a medal, and until now a memorial. For the most dangerous branch of the service that's pretty abysmal, and although is might not be blaming them, it's certainly punishing them. Just asked any Bomber Command aircrew how terribly betrayed they feel/felt.

What did the women do?

Delivered planes to the air force from the factories. Some of these ladies never arrived at the delivery airfield.

One thing lots of people forget, or chose to ignore, is that as servicemen you aren't asked your opinion on whether to attack target X or not. You don't get a choice about it, you do as you're told, and quite rightly so. To blame the aircrew for choices not of their making is a little crass to says the least.

The Nuremberg Defence?

I wonder about the situation they were in, how much is bravery and how much is almost mental shut down. Running on nervous energy, trying to focus on the task in hand and forget everything else. When you know you will probably die, and you need to ignore any self preservation instinct.

I used to work with an Falklands veteran who had fought at Goose Green and it was something he would never talk about, something he almost tried to block from his memory.

Can we leave the petty arguing out of this thread please.

Althought the bombing methods may have been questionable (but successful) , the bravery of these men is not in question.

This is a long awaited recognition of their efforts and bravery and I welcome it, even if it is very very late.

Can we leave the petty arguing out of this thread please

I agree, although the reasons why it has taken so long for the recognition need to be explained and understood by everyone. There's a lot of bitterness around and the background to it all has to be aired even if that involves some poor decisions on behalf of those in charge both during and after WW2.

Either way though, not remembering the folk who put themselves in such danger (for whatever reason) is a poor show.

If we wilfully decided to raise a civillian target and destroyed the whole of Buenos Aires what would happen to our leaders? They'd be war criminals.

No it wasn't another time. Even at the time it was seen as a nasty business hence why the pilots were not honoured before today.

44.3% casualty rate ? Not as bad as the ANZACs in WWI, 58% casualty rate for the colonial cannon fodder. Some small towns in NZ the list of names on the war memorial is longer than the local phone book.

Sorry for slight high-jack but these things are always relative, and statistics need context.

[i]If we wilfully decided to raise a civillian target and destroyed the whole of Buenos Aires what would happen to our leaders? They'd be war criminals. [/i]

Eh? Only the losers become war criminals, fact.

My Canadian Grand Father who is now in his late 80s was a bomb aimer on the Lancasters during WWII, he has told me some amazing stories!

It's such a shame that this memorial has taken so long. When ever I asked him about Bomber Harris, he only ever had a good word to say about him.

It's such a shame that this memorial has taken so long. When ever I asked him about Bomber Harris, he only ever had a good word to say about him.

Fair enough, doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for a war crime(s) though, and as hard as it is to swallow mrmo has a good point about the Nuremberg Defence, as members of the RAF are still seen as terrorists and war criminals in Germany*

Good people, put in a shitty position IMHO, who did what they believed would safeguard there friends and family and paid a very high price.

* To the point that someone where I work has the surname Harris, and when offered a job in Dresden by a a US firm, it was squashed by the local german manager.

Funny how we went into a war with Germany to free Poland. Poland was left under tyranny.

America and Britain wanted freedom from tyranny yet we oppressed people in our own lands on racial grounds.

We then fought a war using tactics against women and children who were unarmed.

If it wasn't for the likes of Auschwitz there would really be no credibility for the whole affair conducted by the Allies.

* To the point that someone where I work has the surname Harris, and when offered a job in Dresden by a a US firm, it was squashed by the local german manager.

Mmmmmmmm.

America and Britain wanted freedom from tyranny yet we oppressed people in our own lands on racial grounds.

It was nothing to do with tyranny, it was all to do with Money. I don't think anyone is deluded enough to think that we went to war for due to a moral objection.

as members of the RAF are still seen as terrorists and war criminals in Germany*

Considering that they're soooo ashamed of their nazi days, they do harbour some ill-feeling. I understand they still hate commando's after the actions of the original army commando's (to the point it was agreed that no commando forces would ever be stationed there).

This Nuremberg stuff is nonsense and counter to a well disciplined military. The responsibility to ensure that military actions are proper falls with politicians and command.
A free thinking military would be a disaster.

If it wasn't for the likes of Auschwitz there would really be no credibility for the whole affair conducted by the Allies.

FFS have a word with yourself hora.

Britain did and it was also partly a case of 'we will be next'.

The US sold lend/lease massive amounts. They were the only country that came out massively richer..

If it wasn't for the likes of Auschwitz there would really be no credibility for the whole affair conducted by the Allies.

Calling bullshit on that too. Ask the French, Dutch, Belgians, Luxembourgers etc whether they were happy being invaded (and that's ignoring what happened elsewhere). My grandfather spent the entire war (well, until mid-44) driving trains for the Germans, whilst the RAF tried to blow him up. His father was blown to pieces by a poorly aimed bomb dropped by an American air raid. His brother was almost drowned by the after effects of the dam busters raid in a work camp in Germany. Despite this, they considered the liberation of Europe extremely important and were always very positive despite the losses on all sides.

Sounds like your suggestion would have been to appease the Germans and let them get on with it in Europe and the rest of the world 🙄

Hora, really ? So if Hitler hadn't burned 6 million people in gas ovens, you think Britain should have put up no resistance to the German invasion ?? Interesting idea.

Can we leave the petty arguing out of this thread please.

I agree with Horas first post

If we wilfully decided to raise a civillian target and destroyed the whole of Buenos Aires what would happen to our leaders? They'd be war criminals.

No it wasn't another time. Even at the time it was seen as a nasty business hence why the pilots were not honoured before today.

whilst they were brave in the sense they had a very high chance of not surviving what they were doing was morally dubious and did not involve targeting legitimate military targets.
it is hard to praise their bravery[ they were] and ignore what they were actually doing hence why even now it is contentious

The war against the Nazis had less to do with money than any other war though it was a response to German expansionism

Hora, really ? So if Hitler hadn't burned 6 million people in gas ovens, you think Britain should have put up no resistance to the German invasion ?? Interesting idea.

No you are misreading my posts. I'm saying if the ovens weren't discovered or to the degree that they were our actions would be seen in a different light/there would be alot less emphasis on the fight of good and 'evil' that we portray today.

True we didn't lay waste to Peasants/starve Russians enmasse however we did kill knowingly target and kill civilians en-masse from the air.

What is the difference? Only the tools.

It would be verging on Sycophancy to expect praise on such a topic. Sorry I'm not ungrateful for the sacrifice of soldiers in WWII however it was fought and waged in a different way to WWI on many counts.

coolhandluke - Member
Althought the bombing methods may have been questionable (but successful) , the bravery of these men is not in question.
This is a long awaited recognition of their efforts and bravery and I welcome it, even if it is very very late.

+1, and I reckon this is what the thread was intended to focus on.

(However, those that share the view above, "[i]If we wilfully decided to raise a civillian target and destroyed the whole of Buenos Aires what would happen to our leaders? They'd be war criminals[/i]"

should look more closely at the non-hypothetical bombing actions of nato in Serbia in the '90s. Its not really the right thread for that discussion though. )

 

Funny how we went into a war with Germany to free Poland. Poland was left under tyranny.

America and Britain wanted freedom from tyranny yet we oppressed people in our own lands on racial grounds.

We then fought a war using tactics against women and children who were unarmed.

If it wasn't for the likes of Auschwitz there would really be no credibility for the whole affair conducted by the Allies.

We may have gone to war initially to free Poland, but wars like this have a habit of being a tad unpredictable. Did we know that Germany would attack Russia? As for attacking civilians, it was total war.

I would suggest that you are right to question yesterdays war with todays morality, but not to pour disdain over what happened then, but only in the context that we have learned from this lesson not to repeat it in the future.

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.

This memorial should be serve as a reminder that these men fought against tyranny using questionable methods by todays standards. I think that is a good thing.

Thanks for bringing Serbia up and then telling us not to discuss it.

This memorial should be serve as a reminder that these men fought against tyranny using questionable methods by todays standards.

Todays morality has nothing to do with time.

The morality of the bombing campaign was questioned then just as its focused on today.

Back then it was classed as 'total war' as a temporary cover. Back then no campaign medals were given to bomber crews.

Today we still question [i]why[/i] over civilian targeting.

No one is questioning the bravery of the pilots however they [i]knew[/i] what they were targeting. What is questioned is why should we honour the product/the act/the targeted?

It should have been left as something of history and not dredged up or honoured. A form of necessary evil.

To discuss Serbia. There was an attempt at intelligence and pin-point target attacks. There were no incendaries and carpet bombing.

I am struggling to understand some of the comments on here. I am not sure there were too many options if the decision had been made to 'take the war to Germany' prior to D Day. Part of the reason to bomb cities, if my history reading serves me well, was to try and drive the population to rise up against the regime. What surprises me in hindsight is that they didn't learn from Coventry, where the bombing actually hardened resistence. As for Germans thinking the bomber crews as terrorists and war criminals, that is not the response I get from German friends, who see the raids as a necessary evil to drive the Nazis out.

If you want to know the history behind the bombing, I'd highly recommend listening to the the Hardcore History [url= http://tinyurl.com/6v6z8wl ]podcast on the subject[/url], the morality of bombing civilians (unavoidable given the technology of the day) was nothing like as clear cut on either side as some may think.

(As an aside I'd recommend this podcast to anyone interested in history, it's highly opinionated and very entertaining.)

Switzerland got rich selling to the Nazis in WWII, Hora, they banked a lot of Jewish wealth which they kept when the owners were exterminated (as were many other Europeans with money in numbered Swiss accountsd) before being paid compensation by the Yanks for friendly fire incidents. We (the Allies) should have just treated them as the enemy and bombed their factories rather than let them go on supplying the Nazis (controversial view not shared by all but not trolling and you don't have to take the bait).

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.

[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" target="_blank">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]

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.

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.

They had far higher morals than we do.

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.

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.