Foro Flamenco


Posts Since Last Visit | Advanced Search | Home | Register | Login

Today's Posts | Inbox | Profile | Our Rules | Contact Admin | Log Out



Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.





The Dam Busters   You are logged in as Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >>Discussions >>Off Topic >> Page: [1] 2 3    >   >>
Login
Message<< Newer Topic  Older Topic >>
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

The Dam Busters 

Some of you might be familiar with Dan Snow the history presenter. I just listened to his two part podcast on Operation Chastise, the bomber operation that damaged German Dams during WWll. It’s amazing that they were able to do it, the idea as simple as skipping rocks on a lake carried out with super heavy spinning bombs seems preposterous.

This article from 10 years ago gives the outline of the new podcast, but it’s filled in with extra newly discovered information. One of the most interesting things about OC was the way the damage of the dams caused wider destruction than was immediately assessed by historians just after the war. The breaking of the dam effected the infrastructure for miles down stream, but more importantly the rebuilding efforts caused the 3rd Reich building corps to pull workers, supplies and equipment from the Normandy Coast where massive coastal installations were being constructed. The cost and downtime to rebuild German infrastructure was more devastating than earlier historians thought.

Of course Churchill recognized the morale victory of hitting behind enemy lines: today it makes me wonder, morale victories come in a different way. The morale is developed by not hitting behind enemy lines, while persevering in the face of total destruction. Some historians called this raid a war crime, and it was, but so was using Flying V aircraft bombs on London.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22510300.amp

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 11 2023 3:54:29
 
BarkellWH

Posts: 3462
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

The British military historian Max Hastings wrote an excellent book on the subject entitled Operation Chastise, published in 2020. The Lancaster bombers and their brave crews came in unbelievably low to escape German detection, and for the most part they succeeded. And the specially designed bombs were a technological marvel. As in all such actions, the catastrophic flooding caused the death of many civilians, most of whom were not Nazis, or even Germans. Rather, they were mostly female East European slave laborers. There will be those who natter on about British "atrocities," etc. Unfortunately, the primary goal of winning the war, in the case of Britain a life-and-death struggle against Nazi Germany, cannot always be accomplished by adhering to the Rules of Queensbury.

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 11 2023 14:46:22
 
silddx

Posts: 605
Joined: May 8 2012
From: London

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

There a film being released imminently about the attack on the Sorpe dam. https://www.attackonsorpedam.com

If you're interested, Charles Foster's blog is really informative about all things Dambusters. He's written some very well received books too, although I haven't read them. http://dambustersblog.com/
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 19 2023 18:41:57
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

A good book on the rapid sinking into war crimes is Human Smoke.

Churchill quite flagrantly bombed non military targets before the Germans did.

Churchill /Hitler /Stalin /Roosevelt. Same murdering ****s.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 19 2023 21:11:04
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrstwinkle

A good book on the rapid sinking into war crimes is Human Smoke.

Churchill quite flagrantly bombed non military targets before the Germans did.

Churchill /Hitler /Stalin /Roosevelt. Same murdering ****s.



Not so fast, Hitler bombed Guernica before WW2 began with Britain and by extension that Hitler used Guernica as a test ground for the bombing techniques employed by the Stuka dive bombers with the intention of later bombing other civilians, it’s quite a solid case to assess the German air command as the first aggressors. It’s mere detail that official hostilities between Britain and Germany hadn’t begun, because we know in hindsight Hitler was the bad actor to provoked the whole war in Europe.


Comparing Stalin to Churchill and Roosevelt is absurd. All three were defending their countries from a war started by the Axis powers and only did what they had to do. The responsibility for the atomic weapons attack in Japan is at the feet of Truman not FDR. Further, Stalin went on to kill 25 million Soviet citizens in his bloody purges, and he alone bears the responsibility for the protracted Korean conflict because he didn’t give a **** what happened and used North Korea as fodder to fight the US in a war against democracy. The Korean War would have ended sooner and to a better negotiated solution if Stalin had not meddled and set up the conflict to last even after his death. We have Stalin to thank for a divided Korea with a stupidly dangerous upper half.

Study Guernica and the reason Hitler did Franco’s bidding.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 25 2023 12:16:47
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

The Germans bombed Guernica in 1937 as Hitler was ramping up to be in direct conflict with Britain. The Ju88’s used were from the Condor Legion. Black and white X.

Now if you truly understand the timelines of WWII, attacking a small Spanish town on behalf of Franco is very much a part of WWII because Hitler desired a fascist controlled Spain as a force on continental Europe he wouldn’t have to fight. So even though Spain tried to remain neutral during the war, Franco was very much allied with Hitler, at least on the outside as a supporter of Nazi regime. Franco didn’t trust Hitler, but he knew he really wasn’t in a great position to fight Germany, and to what advantage? None really.

WWII was set and happening and Hitler was one of the first to order an aerial bombardment on civilians, between himself and Churchill.





Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 25 2023 12:32:29
 
BarkellWH

Posts: 3462
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

quote:

Churchill quite flagrantly bombed non military targets before the Germans did. Churchill /Hitler /Stalin /Roosevelt. Same murdering ****s.


You need to familiarize yourself with World War II and events leading up to it. Churchill did not bomb non-military targets before the Germans. That is nonsense. Moreover, to compare Churchill and Roosevelt with Hitler and Stalin demonstrates such a lack of understanding between the leaders of the democracies and the dictators as to defy credulity. Haven't read such an absurd comment in ages.

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 25 2023 19:29:09
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

quote:

ORIGINAL: BarkellWH

quote:

Churchill quite flagrantly bombed non military targets before the Germans did. Churchill /Hitler /Stalin /Roosevelt. Same murdering ****s.


You need to familiarize yourself with World War II and events leading up to it. Churchill did not bomb non-military targets before the Germans. That is nonsense. Moreover, to compare Churchill and Roosevelt with Hitler and Stalin demonstrates such a lack of understanding between the leaders of the democracies and the dictators as to defy credulity. Haven't read such an absurd comment in ages.

Bill



There’s a strain of writers from the late 2000’s who wrote a lot of counter narratives to the nationalist bent in a lot of post war political games. Like when Simon talks about British nationalism in the sense that they trot out the old Spitfire tropes etc. I think these writers are reacting to that and that enough time has finally gone by for the British population to contemplate what happened to citizens in Germany. Most of this stuff pops up in overdetermined leftist rags. But many people who are serious historians see this as marginal information for a variety of reasons. Now I’m seeing a lot commentary that says look at these sources with a realistic view because the latter day ‘corrections’ are often inaccurate.

For example I did read one that claimed Churchill bombed civilian targets before Hitler, but didn’t take into account that even though Britain had not made a formal declaration to enter the war, the war was already going on. I studied the Picasso painting of Guernica carefully and also followed up with equal interest what actually happened to Guernica and why.

On all sides there was savagery, but some were decidedly more savage than others.

The world saddens me to no end because most people are so reluctant to study first before they make ridiculous proclamations about history. Then idiots like Murdock, Putin, Orban, etc get in their vacuous heads.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 26 2023 2:34:26
 
Escribano

Posts: 6423
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

Germany bombed cities in Poland on September 1st 1939. Churchill was not Prime Minster at the time, nor was Britain at war.

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 26 2023 14:10:45
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

https://barnesreview.org/who-started-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-wwii/

https://www.historicmysteries.com/bomber-harris/
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 27 2023 9:01:50
 
Brendan

Posts: 358
Joined: Oct. 30 2010
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to Escribano

Britain was a worldwide empire. You can’t judge it or its leaders just by looking at what happened in Europe.

In the early 1920s, the RAF got some useful bombing practice in Iraq. The use of air power to suppress colonial revolts was eagerly supported by the war minister at the time, one Winston Churchill, who at one point suggested using the same methods in Ireland.

This is not to suggest that Churchill was just as bad as Stalin or Hitler. But he was an imperialist who was willing to do whatever was necessary to sustain the empire, including aerial bombing of civilians.

The emotional sticking point, the indigestible body of historical fact for British patriots is not Dresden or the Dambuster raids or anything else that happened during WWII. It’s the empire.

_____________________________

https://sites.google.com/site/obscureflamencology/
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 27 2023 9:14:27
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to Escribano

Indeed. The idiot banana opening the context to before Britain had entered the war is clearly not the context of my comment regarding Churchill. If we are playing the pre war game....


  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 27 2023 9:54:14
 
BarkellWH

Posts: 3462
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

Sticking strictly to actions taken during World War II, the statement "Churchill /Hitler /Stalin /Roosevelt. Same murdering ****s." remains absurd. Britain stood alone against the Nazis while Stalin had made his pact with Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbontrop Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the USSR. He was perfectly content to see Germany mounting aerial attacks against Britain. Only when Hitler invaded the USSR in June 1941 did Stalin change his tune. There were atrocities on both sides, as there are in all wars. But to compare Churchill and Roosevelt to Stalin and Hitler as being the "Same murdering****s" without distinguishing between the aggressors and the defenders in a military conflict, and the overall barbarism of the Axis, including Japan, is to either deliberately or inadvertently leave out context entirely.

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 27 2023 19:10:30
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

Stalin was content to have an alliance with the Nazis before Operation Barbarossa. That is before you consider atrocities like Holodomor. Murdering piece of ****.

Churchill firebombed the hell out of cites full of civilians, refugees and forced labourers. Like Hamburg. He refused almost all Jewish refugees. Murdering piece of ****.

Roosevelt wanted into the war and left Pearl Habour as bait, murdering his military en masse as bait. He refused almost all Jewish refugees. Murdering piece of ****.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 27 2023 20:20:01
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to Brendan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brendan

Britain was a worldwide empire. You can’t judge it or its leaders just by looking at what happened in Europe.

In the early 1920s, the RAF got some useful bombing practice in Iraq. The use of air power to suppress colonial revolts was eagerly supported by the war minister at the time, one Winston Churchill, who at one point suggested using the same methods in Ireland.

This is not to suggest that Churchill was just as bad as Stalin or Hitler. But he was an imperialist who was willing to do whatever was necessary to sustain the empire, including aerial bombing of civilians.

The emotional sticking point, the indigestible body of historical fact for British patriots is not Dresden or the Dambuster raids or anything else that happened during WWII. It’s the empire.



Okay let’s play the ‘who’s the most infamous imperial power of the turn of the 20th century’ game

Contestants are:

Japan
Germany
Spain
Italy
Britain
Holland
France
USA


The playing field:
Indonesia
Manchuria
Polynesia
Micronesia
The Philippines
Hawaii
North Africa
India


Let’s just play this game and never talk about a specific event and be as completely self righteous as possible, how about that game?

Oh I forgot Belgium and the Central African region. Right up there in brutality with Britain and Japan.

I’ve lived in a place in Micronesia that underwent going from a pre western contact island to being subjugated by the Spanish, the Germans and the Japanese in a matter of decades, not centuries. On you tube recently I found drone video footage from some Micronesian historians where they flew over the ruins of each colonizer’s administrative buildings. When I lived there briefly it was an opportunity to study and take in the effects and marks left by each successive colonizer and then contemplate what it meant for that region to be a US trust territory. That was my introduction to studying colonialism. Part the deal was to be able to talk to people who were under Japanese occupation from the 1920s until after WWII when the US was the protectorate country. I was told that prior to Japanese occupation the population was over 30,000 and after the war it was 5000. When I’m talking about the war, which I’m deeply interested in, I’ve thought a lot about the human cost, but I keep trying to hold myself in a position of responsibility and dispassionate objectivity.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 2:31:38
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrstwinkle

Stalin was content to have an alliance with the Nazis before Operation Barbarossa. That is before you consider atrocities like Holodomor. Murdering piece of ****.

Churchill firebombed the hell out of cites full of civilians, refugees and forced labourers. Like Hamburg. He refused almost all Jewish refugees. Murdering piece of ****.

Roosevelt wanted into the war and left Pearl Habour as bait, murdering his military en masse as bait. He refused almost all Jewish refugees. Murdering piece of ****.



As an idiot I must protest. Why so heated? You seem really angry about history, and perhaps if you studied it you’d understand it better.

First of all, FDR didn’t leave Pearl Harbor dangling. If any group is to take credit for not taking the threat of an attack to FDR and pressing the case it would be the that the state dept didn’t take the warnings from the Japanese ambassador seriously enough. Nevertheless, the Japanese navy pulled off an amazing surprise attack, and were immediately regretful.

Wars are messed up, but until we figure out how to stop having them we’re going to study them. And studying the wars with dispassionate objectivity is very important, it’s the festering hate of what’s been done in the past that generates new wars and perpetuates aggressions.

All the major wars were begun by festering resentment against a past enemy, and many of the wars happening now are the same. If you don’t have the stomach to look at the wounds and talk about them carefully with others maybe you need to be in private therapy.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 2:51:07
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

quote:

ORIGINAL: BarkellWH

Sticking strictly to actions taken during World War II, the statement "Churchill /Hitler /Stalin /Roosevelt. Same murdering ****s." remains absurd. Britain stood alone against the Nazis while Stalin had made his pact with Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbontrop Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the USSR. He was perfectly content to see Germany mounting aerial attacks against Britain. Only when Hitler invaded the USSR in June 1941 did Stalin change his tune. There were atrocities on both sides, as there are in all wars. But to compare Churchill and Roosevelt to Stalin and Hitler as being the "Same murdering****s" without distinguishing between the aggressors and the defenders in a military conflict, and the overall barbarism of the Axis, including Japan, is to either deliberately or inadvertently leave out context entirely.

Bill



To my mind, WWII doesn’t happen unless Hitler becomes chancellor, therefore the roots of that conflict between Axis and Allied doesn’t happen until Hitler presses the rearming of Germany and the rhetoric that Germany can only climb out of the economic ruin of WW1 by dominating its neighbors.

The contexts of European colonial holdings and the damage that has done to non European nations is a prelude to WWII, but without the perfect storm of Japan in east Asia and chancellor Hitler it all may have been different. So I contain the hostilities that resulted in war in Europe to the five or so years leading to the war where Hitler rearms Germany which makes everyone else nervous and causes a conventional arms race to build long range bombers.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 3:03:49
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

You seem really angry about history, and perhaps if you studied it you’d understand it better.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 10:51:25
 
Brendan

Posts: 358
Joined: Oct. 30 2010
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

Hum well, we’re talking about Britain and Churchill rather than any of the other guilty empires and imperialists because we’re talking about the Dambusters. Bill (not you!) said that Churchill didn’t bomb civilians before Hitler. This is not strictly true: Iraq.

Now, if you as OP want to put your foot down and insist that this thread is solely about WWII, fine, your prerogative. It’d be a loss though, because the British who fought the war were shaped by their empire. When Britain stood alone against the Nazis, it was the British Empire, not the British nation. This matters, not least because we don’t want to erase the contributions of empire servicemen, but also, in this discussion, because the British who fought the war were products of empire. Guy Gibson was born in India and Barnes Wallis had a pre-war career designing military aircraft because the empire needed planes. The schools they attended were part of a whole system tuned to producing an imperial officer class. Etc. Churchill was a florid product of the same system. If you want to understand the British in WWII, including Churchill, this is the stuff you need. And if we’re looking at the ethics of state violence, it’s as well to consider what people regarded as business as usual along with what they did while engaged in a war of national survival.

Of course Britain is only one of the guilty empires. Both my favourite countries are on your list. I’ve never visited Japan, but I’m sure I’d like it. BTW you’ll hear from Armenians if you don’t put the Ottoman Empire on the list too.

Incidentally, the Dambusters film is an utter jewel-box of telling moments for the British view of the British war in 1955. I’m especially fond of the moment when Gibson chooses his second-in-command on the grounds that the man distinguished himself as a rugby blue at stand-off half. Or the point in the raid when several aircraft have been lost but none of the bombs has worked. The air commander looks at Barnes Wallis, who looks at the floor. No dialogue needed. All the stuff about overcoming lack of resources with ingenuity (the sixpenny bombsight, the spotlights). The lone genius against the desk jockeys of the air ministry. It’s great stuff. It reminds us that these men were both inexpressibly brave, climbing into the aircraft night after night knowing that it was just a matter of time before they bought it, and also casual racists (Gibson’s dog). Gibson was killed in action at the age of 26.

I’m all for responsibility and generally pro-objectivity but I don’t think a properly functioning human can be dispassionate about this stuff. I wouldn’t wish it on you.

If you’d care to tell more about your fieldwork (maybe on some other thread), I’m a reader.

_____________________________

https://sites.google.com/site/obscureflamencology/
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 12:37:44
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to Brendan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brendan

Hum well, we’re talking about Britain and Churchill rather than any of the other guilty empires and imperialists because we’re talking about the Dambusters. Bill (not you!) said that Churchill didn’t bomb civilians before Hitler. This is not strictly true: Iraq.

Now, if you as OP want to put your foot down and insist that this thread is solely about WWII, fine, your prerogative. It’d be a loss though, because the British who fought the war were shaped by their empire. When Britain stood alone against the Nazis, it was the British Empire, not the British nation. This matters, not least because we don’t want to erase the contributions of empire servicemen, but also, in this discussion, because the British who fought the war were products of empire. Guy Gibson was born in India and Barnes Wallis had a pre-war career designing military aircraft because the empire needed planes. The schools they attended were part of a whole system tuned to producing an imperial officer class. Etc. Churchill was a florid product of the same system. If you want to understand the British in WWII, including Churchill, this is the stuff you need. And if we’re looking at the ethics of state violence, it’s as well to consider what people regarded as business as usual along with what they did while engaged in a war of national survival.

Of course Britain is only one of the guilty empires. Both my favourite countries are on your list. I’ve never visited Japan, but I’m sure I’d like it. BTW you’ll hear from Armenians if you don’t put the Ottoman Empire on the list too.

Incidentally, the Dambusters film is an utter jewel-box of telling moments for the British view of the British war in 1955. I’m especially fond of the moment when Gibson chooses his second-in-command on the grounds that the man distinguished himself as a rugby blue at stand-off half. Or the point in the raid when several aircraft have been lost but none of the bombs has worked. The air commander looks at Barnes Wallis, who looks at the floor. No dialogue needed. All the stuff about overcoming lack of resources with ingenuity (the sixpenny bombsight, the spotlights). The lone genius against the desk jockeys of the air ministry. It’s great stuff. It reminds us that these men were both inexpressibly brave, climbing into the aircraft night after night knowing that it was just a matter of time before they bought it, and also casual racists (Gibson’s dog). Gibson was killed in action at the age of 26.

I’m all for responsibility and generally pro-objectivity but I don’t think a properly functioning human can be dispassionate about this stuff. I wouldn’t wish it on you.

If you’d care to tell more about your fieldwork (maybe on some other thread), I’m a reader.




Yes, I think you’d like the history podcasts and books I’ve been reading. By dispassionate I mean not being hyperbolic about what it means to take in history. If you blow a gasket and call all combat leaders mass murderers then that’s not a very intelligent way to process history. It’s not productive. For example when I read the book ‘The Last Zero Fighter’ which is a compendium of accounts from former Japanese navy pilots who finally granted interviews in the mid 2000’s I had to hold myself in a place of trying to hear the story from their side. I challenge you to read the same book and image you are an American reading about Japanese pilots experiences who were not at all sorry they attacked Pearl Harbor.
I live in a neighborhood that was fire bombed by American aircraft in WWII, my neighborhood was destroyed to make way for a potential US Navy invasion and when I look out our bedroom window in the morning I can still see the evidence of the war from going on 80 years ago, yet I work for the Japanese government now and am a valued member of my circle in the community.

My deep dive field work is on going. In my family there is a military historian whose writing is published in several international diplomatic journals, like Foreign Affairs and other academic journals. He wrote a brilliant summation of the US in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In closing he says. “We’ve seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.”

Now, Germany bombed the UK in a significant way at during WWI. In two separate waves. It was in 1915. Since Germany wasn’t under British colonial rule in the German homeland, there is a case for discussing straight across aggression between these two countries, and I add that in many ways the Blitz can be viewed as an extension of the bombing raids carried out by Germany in WWI.

So my interest in the Dam Busters isn’t cold and unemotional, but it’s controlled enough to understand why it happened and how it was strategized. To me the important thing in evaluating a general or a leader that sends troops into a death zone is how that person weighs his or her burden to be the person to send men to a battlefield. I can’t get in anyone’s head, but I feel there are leaders abd generals who took that responsibility more seriously and were harder on themselves than others.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 14:10:40
 
BarkellWH

Posts: 3462
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

quote:

Roosevelt wanted into the war and left Pearl Habour as bait, murdering his military en masse as bait. He refused almost all Jewish refugees. Murdering piece of ****.


That old canard has been rejected by every reputable historian who has studied the attack on Pearl Harbor. That you still believe it suggests that you should read some real history instead of conspiracy theories masquerading as history. Roosevelt did not leave Pearl Harbor as "bait," and he certainly did not "murder" his military. There was intelligence missed and mistakes made, but there was no deliberate attempt to leave Pearl Harbor open to Japanese attack in order to enter the war.

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 18:49:16
 
BarkellWH

Posts: 3462
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to Brendan

quote:

Bill (not you!) said that Churchill didn’t bomb civilians before Hitler. This is not strictly true: Iraq.


I probably should have spelled it out, Brendan, but I was assuming the context was World War II.

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 28 2023 18:56:09
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

quote:

ORIGINAL: BarkellWH

quote:

Roosevelt wanted into the war and left Pearl Habour as bait, murdering his military en masse as bait. He refused almost all Jewish refugees. Murdering piece of ****.


That old canard has been rejected by every reputable historian who has studied the attack on Pearl Harbor. That you still believe it suggests that you should read some real history instead of conspiracy theories masquerading as history. Roosevelt did not leave Pear Harbor as "bait," and he certainly did not "murder" his military. There was intelligence missed and mistakes made, but there was no deliberate attempt to leave Pearl Harbor open to Japanese attack in order to enter the war.

Bill

And there’s another idea, the Japanese navy prepared and carried off an audacious and bold attack with precision. Which is something not everyone wants to acknowledge, but likely some fact to it.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 29 2023 12:18:23
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

reputable?

Low IQ propagandist. Not your fault. Most people are mediocre and borderline illiterate.

Like Faulk.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 29 2023 21:44:46
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to BarkellWH

You're a stupid illiterate ****. Helps you against US war crimes.

A murdering moronic warmonger mediocrity **** like Faulk
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 29 2023 22:18:33
 
mrstwinkle

 

Posts: 551
Joined: May 14 2017
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

Leftist ****s like Faulk.... who cares for these backwards fukktards Bye.
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 29 2023 22:31:08
 
Richard Jernigan

Posts: 3435
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

quote:

ORIGINAL estebanana

Wars are messed up, but until we figure out how to stop having them we’re going to study them. And studying the wars with dispassionate objectivity is very important, it’s the festering hate of what’s been done in the past that generates new wars and perpetuates aggressions.

All the major wars were begun by festering resentment against a past enemy, and many of the wars happening now are the same.


“The result of war is never final.” von Clausewitz

RNJ
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 29 2023 22:42:40
 
Escribano

Posts: 6423
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to mrstwinkle

And here lies an example of how not to win an argument, provide little evidence and then descend into insulting people who may disagree.

How to get yourself banned from a forum. Bye.

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 30 2023 10:04:51
 
Piwin

Posts: 3566
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to estebanana

quote:

and call all combat leaders mass murderers then that’s not a very intelligent way to process history. It’s not productive


It can be. Just that it leads to questions that nobody wants to ask among those who wish to uphold our current state model(s). You can find anything and everything in the archaeological record of our species. Such is the ingenuity of human beings. And yes, it includes examples of social organisations that are thought to have not placed such a high premium on violence as we do (and conversely social organisations that are thought to have placed a much higher premium on it than we do). Refusing to ask that question is like spending all of your time looking at how one slave owner cared deeply about the plight of his slaves while another was gratuitously cruel to them, but never bothering to question the institution of slavery that put people in that situation in the first place. Both lines of inquiry are interesting in their own right, but only the latter actually matters for future political change, which, to my mind at least, makes that one a lot more productive than the other.

"Wars are messed up, but until we figure out how to stop having them (...)" you say. Well, I'd suggest the starting point to figuring that out is to posit that all combat leaders are indeed mass murderers. That the social organisations we've developed require mass murder to function; as they say, it's a feature not a bug. Unfortunately the current paradigm is so firmly established that many don't actually believe in the possibility of a world without war. It's treated as a childish pipe dream, and often dismissed with arguments each more fallacious than the next (the "human nature" one wins the cake though. Geez that one is dumb...). In the meantime, when the topic of war comes up we're served with arguments which are essentially glorified versions of "he started it" or "he did it too", and these days even "I did it first but only because if I hadn't he would've". And somehow we're the childish ones...

In fact, I think the refusal to qualify all combat leaders as mass murderers is really an admission of not believing in the possibility of a world without war. We can't qualify them as such because we need them to keep our state model(s) running. And since we can't call into question our state model(s) either, then yeah, we have to create a categorical distinction that exempts those forms of killing from being considered murder. Many of the arguments used today to justify state killings date back to the Enlightenment. While not the sole reason for those arguments, it's not coincidental that they came at a time when Europeans were discovering new worlds, with their own forms of social organisation and, when asked, their own critique of what European society looked like. Not just on the topic of war, since many so-called indigenous societies also had a culture of war, but it did include that and many other topics. To exclude the possibility of combat leaders as mass murderers is to exclude the indigenous critique, and to refuse to consider the possibility that this state of affairs may have less to do with our "nature" and more with the choices we make in how to organize our societies. Hence why there is a very strong drive in that camp to belittle, and in some cases dismiss entirely, human agency.

In the same way as our views may change depending on the time-span we take into account, as per the discussion above, the same is true of the scope of social organisation we take into account. To say they're not mass murderers we have to limit that scope to a certain kind of social organisation and exclude all the others. It seems a bit too convenient if you ask me. If we broaden the scope even further and look at our two closest relatives in the evolutionary tree, we have one that raids and kills to solve disputes, and another that fùcks to solve disputes, with AFAIK not a single recorded instance of intra-species killing. I know of several well-regarded primatologists who don't shy away from using the term "culture" to explain that. Though granted, if I was told that to prevent WWII from happening my only two options were to either kill or fùck Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and Hitler... erm... yeah that's a tough one ngl ^^

None of that need get in the way of a proper appreciation of historical facts. We just need to be cautious with the usual exercise of separating fact from opinion. That's often more difficult than it sounds, but I'd suggest it is nowhere as difficult as when the opinion we hold is so widespread as to constitute a paradigm. In those cases, it's easy to not even notice that that opinion is there and coloring our interpretation of the facts. And sometimes, just sometimes, it isn't the "overdetermined leftist" who is struggling to separate fact from opinion...

Churchill was a mass murderer. Carry on.

_____________________________

"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 30 2023 11:06:03
 
estebanana

Posts: 9396
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
 

RE: The Dam Busters (in reply to Piwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piwin

quote:

and call all combat leaders mass murderers then that’s not a very intelligent way to process history. It’s not productive


It can be. Just that it leads to questions that nobody wants to ask among those who wish to uphold our current state model(s). You can find anything and everything in the archaeological record of our species. Such is the ingenuity of human beings. And yes, it includes examples of social organisations that are thought to have not placed such a high premium on violence as we do (and conversely social organisations that are thought to have placed a much higher premium on it than we do). Refusing to ask that question is like spending all of your time looking at how one slave owner cared deeply about the plight of his slaves while another was gratuitously cruel to them, but never bothering to question the institution of slavery that put people in that situation in the first place. Both lines of inquiry are interesting in their own right, but only the latter actually matters for future political change, which, to my mind at least, makes that one a lot more productive than the other.

"Wars are messed up, but until we figure out how to stop having them (...)" you say. Well, I'd suggest the starting point to figuring that out is to posit that all combat leaders are indeed mass murderers. That the social organisations we've developed require mass murder to function; as they say, it's a feature not a bug. Unfortunately the current paradigm is so firmly established that many don't actually believe in the possibility of a world without war. It's treated as a childish pipe dream, and often dismissed with arguments each more fallacious than the next (the "human nature" one wins the cake though. Geez that one is dumb...). In the meantime, when the topic of war comes up we're served with arguments which are essentially glorified versions of "he started it" or "he did it too", and these days even "I did it first but only because if I hadn't he would've". And somehow we're the childish ones...

In fact, I think the refusal to qualify all combat leaders as mass murderers is really an admission of not believing in the possibility of a world without war. We can't qualify them as such because we need them to keep our state model(s) running. And since we can't call into question our state model(s) either, then yeah, we have to create a categorical distinction that exempts those forms of killing from being considered murder. Many of the arguments used today to justify state killings date back to the Enlightenment. While not the sole reason for those arguments, it's not coincidental that they came at a time when Europeans were discovering new worlds, with their own forms of social organisation and, when asked, their own critique of what European society looked like. Not just on the topic of war, since many so-called indigenous societies also had a culture of war, but it did include that and many other topics. To exclude the possibility of combat leaders as mass murderers is to exclude the indigenous critique, and to refuse to consider the possibility that this state of affairs may have less to do with our "nature" and more with the choices we make in how to organize our societies. Hence why there is a very strong drive in that camp to belittle, and in some cases dismiss entirely, human agency.

In the same way as our views may change depending on the time-span we take into account, as per the discussion above, the same is true of the scope of social organisation we take into account. To say they're not mass murderers we have to limit that scope to a certain kind of social organisation and exclude all the others. It seems a bit too convenient if you ask me. If we broaden the scope even further and look at our two closest relatives in the evolutionary tree, we have one that raids and kills to solve disputes, and another that fùcks to solve disputes, with AFAIK not a single recorded instance of intra-species killing. I know of several well-regarded primatologists who don't shy away from using the term "culture" to explain that. Though granted, if I was told that to prevent WWII from happening my only two options were to either kill or fùck Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and Hitler... erm... yeah that's a tough one ngl ^^

None of that need get in the way of a proper appreciation of historical facts. We just need to be cautious with the usual exercise of separating fact from opinion. That's often more difficult than it sounds, but I'd suggest it is nowhere as difficult as when the opinion we hold is so widespread as to constitute a paradigm. In those cases, it's easy to not even notice that that opinion is there and coloring our interpretation of the facts. And sometimes, just sometimes, it isn't the "overdetermined leftist" who is struggling to separate fact from opinion...

Churchill was a mass murderer. Carry on.



Bill,

Would you like to field this one? Because I thought I made my position of seeking grace as transparent as I could.
S.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date May 30 2023 13:42:13
Page:   [1] 2 3    >   >>
All Forums >>Discussions >>Off Topic >> Page: [1] 2 3    >   >>
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET

0.109375 secs.