Bomber Command fliers in their own words
Discussion
TEKNOPUG said:
Eric Mc said:
I said there were more. I know that the Pathfinders used P-51s near the end of the war and Bomber Command also used Bostons.
Were the Heavies still all operating out of the UK at the end of the war or were any stationed in mainland Europe?As did the vast bulk of the USAAF bombing effort - mainly based in Suffolk and Norfolk.
I lived for a while on the border of Notts and Lincolnshire. You couldn't go very far without seeing the remains of a WW2 bomber airfield. Sometimes brought a lump to my throat when I came across the decaying buildings or bits of runway.
I'm pleased to see the bravery and sacrifices made by those young men and boys are being recognised.
I'm pleased to see the bravery and sacrifices made by those young men and boys are being recognised.
Simpo Two said:
It does contrast somewhat with the more usual quote (ie unprompted by a young BBC person) of 'If anyone tells you he wasn't scared he was a bloody liar'.
I think the way these veterans are obviously feeling pressured to change their story/views/opinions to please modern PC types is disgraceful.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you making it up?I think the way these veterans are obviously feeling pressured to change their story/views/opinions to please modern PC types is disgraceful.
Having lurked this thread a bit I think a step back is in order.
There is nothing wrong with Hugo wanting to debate the awkward issues raised - that amongst many, many other things is exactly why the 'awkward' issues took place - if we never learn, question or revise then what exactly is the point of the freedoms 55000 or so brave souls helped to win? We actually owe it to them to keep questioning - they helped buy us that right.
I guess the moral of the story is that any standards you set for yourself (think conventions) will ultimately fail under the right duress. I dont eat people. I might if it were the only option for survival. I don't area bomb civilians... well we don't these days but we sure as hell would if it were the only option.
Took my 80 year old mother to Hendon (I think it was Hendon not Duxford) along with young nephew - she cried when she saw the B17 (British stuff didn't take off or land near her). That's what it was worth. That's why, even if in hindsight we judge it wrong by the standards we'd like to try to uphold, we need offer no criticism to those who had no choice but to do whatever they thought necessary.
rant over.
There is nothing wrong with Hugo wanting to debate the awkward issues raised - that amongst many, many other things is exactly why the 'awkward' issues took place - if we never learn, question or revise then what exactly is the point of the freedoms 55000 or so brave souls helped to win? We actually owe it to them to keep questioning - they helped buy us that right.
I guess the moral of the story is that any standards you set for yourself (think conventions) will ultimately fail under the right duress. I dont eat people. I might if it were the only option for survival. I don't area bomb civilians... well we don't these days but we sure as hell would if it were the only option.
Took my 80 year old mother to Hendon (I think it was Hendon not Duxford) along with young nephew - she cried when she saw the B17 (British stuff didn't take off or land near her). That's what it was worth. That's why, even if in hindsight we judge it wrong by the standards we'd like to try to uphold, we need offer no criticism to those who had no choice but to do whatever they thought necessary.
rant over.
It's not 'us' that judged the actions of Bomber Command it was those that survived the war and the wartime and post war leaders.
Churchill disagreed with Harris's continued bombing of Germany, it was the the fact that the fire bombing of German cities didn't really fit in with our story of how we won the war that resulted in Bomber Command never getting the recognition they deserved at the time.
Don't blame modern handwringing lefties and apologists or the Guardian, blame those that were around at the time. They're the ones that refused to recognise Bomber Command's contribution.
Churchill disagreed with Harris's continued bombing of Germany, it was the the fact that the fire bombing of German cities didn't really fit in with our story of how we won the war that resulted in Bomber Command never getting the recognition they deserved at the time.
Don't blame modern handwringing lefties and apologists or the Guardian, blame those that were around at the time. They're the ones that refused to recognise Bomber Command's contribution.
Simpo I think you need to research a bit into Bomber Command and Churchill's relationship with them.
Churchill distanced himself from Bomber command and their contribution to the war. He even omitted them completely from his VE day speech.
Bomber command weren't betrayed by modern apologists they were betrayed by Churchill and other political figures after the war.
Churchill distanced himself from Bomber command and their contribution to the war. He even omitted them completely from his VE day speech.
Bomber command weren't betrayed by modern apologists they were betrayed by Churchill and other political figures after the war.
el stovey said:
Simpo I think you need to research a bit into Bomber Command and Churchill's relationship with them.
Churchill distanced himself from Bomber command and their contribution to the war. He even omitted them completely from his VE day speech.
Yes, but only at the very end when he realised that area bombing might actually be a political hot potato in the ensuing peace. His decision was shrewdly political. Harris could not simply have taken 1,000 bombers to Germany if Churchill had said 'no'.Churchill distanced himself from Bomber command and their contribution to the war. He even omitted them completely from his VE day speech.
Did you watch 'Who Betrayed Bomber Command' shown recently?
Odd comment in the Daily Express Friday by Richard Desmond, owner of the paper, he said
"It is vital that we remember the men of Bomber Command. Without these brave men we would probably be under Nazi occupation now"
Nazi occupation?, 66 years after the war ended if Germany won, is he on this planet or what!
"It is vital that we remember the men of Bomber Command. Without these brave men we would probably be under Nazi occupation now"
Nazi occupation?, 66 years after the war ended if Germany won, is he on this planet or what!
Vipers said:
Odd comment in the Daily Express Friday by Richard Desmond, owner of the paper, he said
"It is vital that we remember the men of Bomber Command. Without these brave men we would probably be under Nazi occupation now"
Nazi occupation?, 66 years after the war ended if Germany won, is he on this planet or what!
It was a 1000 year Reich after all."It is vital that we remember the men of Bomber Command. Without these brave men we would probably be under Nazi occupation now"
Nazi occupation?, 66 years after the war ended if Germany won, is he on this planet or what!
I think it is fair to say that they would have been as ruthless as they needed to be to stay in power.
AM04ARO said:
Vipers said:
Odd comment in the Daily Express Friday by Richard Desmond, owner of the paper, he said
"It is vital that we remember the men of Bomber Command. Without these brave men we would probably be under Nazi occupation now"
Nazi occupation?, 66 years after the war ended if Germany won, is he on this planet or what!
It was a 1000 year Reich after all."It is vital that we remember the men of Bomber Command. Without these brave men we would probably be under Nazi occupation now"
Nazi occupation?, 66 years after the war ended if Germany won, is he on this planet or what!
I think it is fair to say that they would have been as ruthless as they needed to be to stay in power.
Negative Creep said:
Although straying off topic, it's an interesting question. If we had been invaded and conquered in 1940 would we still be occupied now? Hitler would have still invaded the Soviet Union, and likely won since there would have been no distractions in the Balkans or Lend Lease for Stalin.
Just seemed an odd quote, there is a thought which has been branded around that we may have been better off if Germany had won.Anyway, we owe a lot to the fliers in both wars, so ignore my comments, let us be gratefull to so many brave men and women during both wars, to you we thank you.
God bless you all.
Professional interviewers are very good at asking leading questions. They want the interviewee to express a view or an opnion that maybe the interviewee doesn't actually hold - or may not have ever had an opinion on up to the moment the question is asked.
Also, asking a 90 year old a question about something they did when they were 20 can bring about odd responses. Older people are often quite sad and maudlin compared to their younger selves and they may be thinking in a more depressed state of mind than they once had. They may not be completely with it either - and certainly not up to serious debate with a twenty something hyped up reporter with an agenda.
There are exceptions of course.
It's often not the answer to the question that is important, but how the question was asked - and how the answer was elicited and edited. The latter aspects are, of course, completely within the control of the people presenting the report.
Also, asking a 90 year old a question about something they did when they were 20 can bring about odd responses. Older people are often quite sad and maudlin compared to their younger selves and they may be thinking in a more depressed state of mind than they once had. They may not be completely with it either - and certainly not up to serious debate with a twenty something hyped up reporter with an agenda.
There are exceptions of course.
It's often not the answer to the question that is important, but how the question was asked - and how the answer was elicited and edited. The latter aspects are, of course, completely within the control of the people presenting the report.
dr_gn said:
I wasn't thinking so much of the risk and danger element, rather that a 20 year old man can't see the connection between dropping high explosives on a city, and people being killed. I can see that at night, from several thousand feet you'd be distanced from the effects, but still...
It is interesting that your quote is as valid about 1939-1945 as it is for 2002-2011. Nothing has changed barring the weapons have become better at killing. You get the guys that revel in war, live for the rush, it not about killing and the moral dilemma, war is the ultimate extreme game, where losing means dieing, some guys just love playing it.
Eric Mc said:
Professional interviewers are very good at asking leading questions. They want the interviewee to express a view or an opnion that maybe the interviewee doesn't actually hold - or may not have ever had an opinion on up to the moment the question is asked.
Also, asking a 90 year old a question about something they did when they were 20 can bring about odd responses. Older people are often quite sad and maudlin compared to their younger selves and they may be thinking in a more depressed state of mind than they once had. They may not be completely with it either - and certainly not up to serious debate with a twenty something hyped up reporter with an agenda.
There are exceptions of course.
It's often not the answer to the question that is important, but how the question was asked - and how the answer was elicited and edited. The latter aspects are, of course, completely within the control of the people presenting the report.
All true. But I don't think any of us have any idea whether or how these things apply in this case, do we? So it's ridiculous to say that "these veterans are obviously feeling pressured to change their story/views/opinions to please modern PC types" when you have no evidence that is so.Also, asking a 90 year old a question about something they did when they were 20 can bring about odd responses. Older people are often quite sad and maudlin compared to their younger selves and they may be thinking in a more depressed state of mind than they once had. They may not be completely with it either - and certainly not up to serious debate with a twenty something hyped up reporter with an agenda.
There are exceptions of course.
It's often not the answer to the question that is important, but how the question was asked - and how the answer was elicited and edited. The latter aspects are, of course, completely within the control of the people presenting the report.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff