Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
If you believe what you read in the Spectator then it is you who will have his bubble burst. Its an informercial for a book dear boy.
Candocad.
The fledgling RAF and the French practiced strategic bombing of German civilian targets in WW I. They realized that if they broke the morale of the civilian population, the front line soldiers would lose heart for the war. It worked, soldiers on leave shocked by the devastation and hardship.
The same thing applied in WW II. The age of innocence in modern war was over.
The same thing applied in WW II. The age of innocence in modern war was over.
I read your link. No evidence given in the review to support the title of it. You'd think that if the author had made such a statement it would have been reproduced. None found in the comments below the article either.
If you've read the book feel free to reproduce the evidence that supports your assertion, whatever it is. The reviewer couldn't find any apparently as they had to content themselves with some general statements unsupported by any examples. It makes for a catchy headline though.
"Bombing in Europe was never a winning strategy, says Richard Overy in The Bombing War"
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Speer said after the war that if the offensives against the Ruhr dams, the ball-bearing factories, or the oil plants had been kept up, they would have made it impossible to continue. But historians need to say something new; you don't win any prizes for confirming what was already known.
Regardless, Germany got a good pounding, which was richly deserved. The only pity is it cost the lives of so many good men to administer it. Don't you remember Goebbels asking the German people if they wanted "Totalenkrieg"? They didn't say "no" did they?
I forgot to mention your Gotha bombers dropping bombs on a clearly marked Canadian hospital in France in WWI and of course their attacks on London itself. Even in WWI and before, German leaders were waxing poetic on how necessity was the only law in war and every means must be used without scruples, how anything which undermined the enemy's will to resist was legitimate, if only because it might shorten a war. They wrote whole books about it; maybe you should read some of them.
So your story is evil Mr. Churchill, that arch-conspirator, spoiled Mr. Hitler's gentlemanly war? If that makes you feel better, you go right ahead and believe it. Since your side lost, twice, you are free to abuse the freedoms bought in blood that you presently enjoy.
Last edited:
- Location
- Leduc County, Alberta
Definitely Re-Enactment. Kinda Farby. Ultra Clean uniforms/perfect condition equipment, MG not being used in it's intended role during a firefight, etc...
I would NOT want to be that BREN gun crew when that antitank cannon lets go.....
Instant deafness methinks!!!
I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember reading that a German bomber pilot had to dump his bomb load for some reason in bad weather or fog and mistakenly dropped on part of London and Churchill's retaliation was the start of city/civilian bombing. I don't know if any of it is true but I remember reading it a few years ago.
Yes! I know a fellow who was in front of a tank when it fired the main gun. he lost both ear drums and was very deaf the rest of his life.
That must have been a set up just to take the picture.
From reading about the battle of britain, as macabre as it sounds, the switch to bombing English civilian targets is probably what won Them the Battle of Britain. By all accounts the bombing of radar installations, airfields and fighter squadrons had the Brits on their knees and the switch gave them the much needed reprieve to rearm, train new pilots and continue inflicting heavy losses on the incoming fighter bombers.
