The Queen nb

[tcm]

they don\'t like it up \'em: The Queen

just a minute here , okay, 35,000 dead according to most reports in dresden against 30,000 dead in homeland brits from Blitz and other attacks. So lets not get too carried away with it. Adolf Hitler polled more votes in the thirties at 13million than Tony Blair (or any postwar uk prime minister, i think?) ever did.

The german people put the lunatics in power - it wasn't a total aberation, nor did he "seize" power from otherwise nice and kind hausfraus and innocent workers. His speeches before 1933 told of war being the natural condition of a state, and of genocide against jews, against the infiirm and mentally ill.

Bombing-wise, note that germany started AND they finished it too- several hundreds were killed by V2 rockets throughout march 1945, even though area bombing was stopped by the end of feb 45 - after Dresden. So not at all hiroshima-like, where the japs were cowed after nuclear bombs later in 1945.

If there's a sorry to be said it is from Germany - for continuing a war they could never win from mid July 1944 all the way until May 1945 - they could and should have sued for peace then.

Toasting the Queen? Okay - though remember that one of her husband's several sisters married Prince Christophe, Nazi party member in 1933 and director of scientific research under Herman Goering from 1935. Correspondence through those channels was seized by the Battenburgs (subsequently Mountabatten, then Windsor) and remains classified to this day. If there is to be a royal yacht again, it would be most correct for it to be ....a Bavaria!

Note also how this monarch talks of duty, always duty...but I wonder if she ever talks of love for the country, its ways and its culture and people. Ever heard any of them do that? I haven't. Mind you it's either that daft lot of a bunch of jocks/pretenders, or of course, Popery.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

I agree. Your aguments seems to destroy the edifice of the EU, by the way - or perhaps on purpose? The symbol of democracy in the UK remains a removal van the day after polling day in Downing Street. We know how to votem in and votem out, whatever side we like or don't like.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re:I\'d like to

History says that Bomber Harris was an evil guy. Given the events at the time, quite justified I'd say

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[tcm]

Reisagree

History says no such thing. A few modern commentators might say so, quite a different matter! Nuclear devices were being actively developed by the Germans in early 1945. And the V2 rockets killed hundreds of people in London *AFTER* area bombings of Germany ended. So it's okay for them to randomly blast bombs this way, and not for us to do the same? Only with hindsight, surely?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Reisagree

Err, OK,l was being contemporary?
they deserved what they got, as they blambed us without mercy for many a year

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[tcm]

Reisagree

well, ok.

Actually, ww2 wasn't england v germany - as with (part of) 1966 - it was the russians wot won it. 20 million russians died, against 1 million allied losses.

No question that attacking russia did in the germans, same as it did Napoleon. They never blimmin learn, these dictators, eh? Whereas, if there's been a nice web forum they cd've swapped ideas, etc all v much better

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Reisagree

Your're being unfair, The USless had a huge part in winning the war for us.

When I was a teenager, wandered around Scandinavia for a bit. War museums all over. Quite suprising for a young kid. USA tour group in one of them. Loud Yank asking why Brits got such a mention. Can'tt remember actual numbers, but brits died defending Norway in hundreds, norwegians in tens, US in single figures. Less loud Yank pointed to plaque, and silence descended for a while. Git left a while after with people pointing out to him why yanks didn't save entire world, and why brits rather popular in northern scandinvia and crete amongst other places

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[jimi]

Reisagree

Acshully the Brits & Norwegians saved the planet from world Nazi domination .. had it not been for the bravery of a few men the V1 & V2s would probably have been armed with nuclear warheads.

On another interesting note related to the original subject of the thread. Quite recently I was speaking to someone who had been involved with guarding Hess, and it apparently was not the Russians who were scared witless about letting him go or letting him speak, it was allegedly the Brits.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CaptainCava]

<<...as long as it don't cost too much>>

I guess they bring in a few tourist bucks, but I wonder if their overall contribution to the economy is positive or negative. Does anyone know?

In answer to the above, I suppose the monarchists will dream up totally immeasurable 'goodwill' type arguments in their economic-value favour, while the anti's will rubbish everything they do and cite the enormous amount of money we pay them for just 'being royal'.

On balance I'm a bit anti, especially after the disgusting way they behaved after Di's death. However, I could be won round again, if only they would stop letting themselves and the country down by acting like total prats most of the time. Why can't we have a royal family like the Spanish or the Dutch?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re:I\'d heard that.

Makes you wonder what his real mission was.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Fighting. You have to be there

It's a pretty straight forward thing for the participants. You keep hitting until you win. If you can hit with something harder than the other bloke has you'll win quicker. Winners shouldn't apologise. If HM waits another 10 years she'll offend less people as the participants will mainly be dead. My dad and his mates wouldn't have apologized.

The only morality issue for me isn't in the methods used in WW2 it's just about who started it and why. Much more straight forward than more recent conflicts.

Looking at any conflict across the chasm of the generations is futile. Perceptions have changed as the moral mores shift.

The poor old Germans would prefer us just to forget about it and move on. If anyone visited Germany during the 50's 60's or 70's you'd have got bored with them apologising.

If HM wants to apologize for something she could start with the treatment of war widows or testing nukes on our own soldiers or Iraq. Not that wars and stuff are anything to do with her anyway.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Reisagree

erm, the first part of your post pumps up the US involvement, but the second part knocks them back down. Which do you fancy?

I'm not being "unfair" in quoting general accepted figures - 1million allied losses, 20 million russians.

But I agree that the US makes the best war movies, followed by UK, and worst are the ruskies. Hence contribution is seen in that light.

The facts remain that Germans turned east in 1941 at the height of their powers, but the war was lost by early 1943 with the same armies that had overcome France in six weeks, and had believed that they would overrun Russia in a fortnight ....surrendering as their supply lines left them cut off. Germany lost a quarter of a million Germans solidiers - their very best.

The US arrived in the UK 8 months later, and together with UK and others attacked across the channel. But the allies attacked a severely weakened German war machine in mid 1944. They never fought the forces that had overrun Europe in 1939 in Poland or Western Europe in 1940. Russia did face that force, and beat them, albeit at the incredible cost of 20 million lives.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jeremy_W]

Spelling

If you've ever heard a foreigner struggling to pronounce Leicester, Loughborough, Kilconquhar (in Fife - pronounced Kinneuchar), Kirkcudbright or even Menzies ("Ming-ish").

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Reisagree

As is ever the way in the real world, there are both upsides and downsides. One doesn't preclude the other


<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[tcm]

Reisagree

Fine by me, as long as people start from the actual facts.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jeremy_W]

Dresden Bombings

In "A Mad World, My Masters" John Simpson reports Churchill's reactions to the effects of bombing cities. John Colville, Churchill's private secretary, told Simpson what he had recorded in his diary at the time. Bomber Harris had compiled film of the effects of bombings and showed it to Churchill:
####
"...there was "Bomber Harris" grinning all over his face with pride. I wasn't at all certain how Churchill would react - didn't have a clue. So I stole a look at him... There he was, with the tears running down his face. And he said "Are we beasts, that we should be doing these things?"

"So that's what he thought about the bombing."
####

But Churchill didn't stop the bomber offensive because of this. The job in hand, destroying a bestial regime that was developing nuclear weapons, didn't allow time for soggy emotionalism.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Nickel]

Reisagree

I would find it exceedingly strange if Norwegians or Cretans were really grateful to the British - since in both cases it was a rather crass Churchillian attempt to fight the war in extraneous theatres that brought the wrath of the Germans down so heavily upon them.

Norway in particular could easily have stayed neutral throughout the war if it wasn't for Churchill, and as for Crete and Greece, Germany was intervening to support another Mussolini bungle, but the weight of German intervention increased dramatically once the British intervened also - and in intervening so pointlessly we threw away the earliest best chance to kick the Axis out of Africa entirely.

Both Norway and Greece from our point of view were pointless debacles. From the Norwegian and Greek point of view I would expect them to be something worse!


As for the US winning the war for us - against the Japanese, yes. Against the Germans - no. American involvement in Europe did one thing, and that was push eastwards the line of liberation by the Red Army.

To come back to the subject of the thread - if there's any apology warranted it is to Bomber Harris and his crews, for the modern revisionist view of history that somehow brandishes them as bad guys.

It is fatal to enter a war without the will to win it. Bomber Harris had that will, and we will never know whether his tactic of Night Area bombing could have destroyed Germany's ability to wage war as he envisioned. I for one suspect it could have.

[On a personal note, my uncle flew two tours as a tail gunner in Wellingtons, and then died of TB in 1946! ]


<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.

 

[BrendanS]

Reisagree

You only had to visit Norway and Crete 20 years ago, to know what the feelings were. In Norway there are war museums in every small town, and in Crete Germans were often ignored in shops. As here, the younger generations don't care much about 'ancient' history so the effect is dying away.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[EME]

Re-inventing history

"As for the US winning the war for us - ..... . Against the Germans - no. American involvement in Europe did one thing, and that was push eastwards the line of liberation by the Red Army."

Can't disagree too much with that ... line of liberation would otherwise have been Holyhead .


<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue>I am WHAT I say I am</font color=blue>

 

[tome]

Reisagree

Actually, I find Norwegian reaction somewhat mixed to the war. My own father spent 3 years in German prison camps and I visited one of them with him. He had a terrible time of it there, and saw friends executed by firing squad. Every Friday, a visiting Gestapo contingent would pick out people at random and they would be shipped to Germany. Few were heard of again. His own uncle who was captured with him was executed.

Despite all this, he harbours no lasting grudge against the Germans. During the occupation, Norwegians were relatively well treated (compared to some countries). The Germans considered them as kindred folk who had been misguided by Churchill. Possibly this was due to the Hanseatic trading links between the two countries, and the Arian appearance of its people.

The Norwegian royal family and government-in-exile were based in London, and it was to Britain and its allies that Norwegians looked to end their occupation and humiliation. The end-game started in October 44 when the Russians advanced against the Germans in Finnmark. The retreating Germans operated a scorched-earth policy, but within weeks the Russians had been joined by Norwegian troops who had trained in Scotland.

The end came suddenly in May 45 with the capitulation of the Germans in Europe, and 40,000 armed Norwegian resistance fighters turned up to take control of strategic places. At the prison camp where my dad was held, the guards melted away overnight and the men marched into town to a tumultous reception.

Although the Allied rescue never came, there were close links with London throughout the war and I believe that most Norwegians are grateful for the support provided. Otherwise, they wouldn't give us a nice Christmas tree for Trafalgar Square each year, would they?



<hr width=100% size=1>