03 Feb 2014 19:47:26 Interesting documentary I came across over the w… · #2296

I do not doubt that Hitler was not the man he was presented to be by those who targeted him, but anyone willing to stoop to the level of those who attack him is a fool. I am referring to the bombings of civilian targets of course.
Zari

05 Feb 2014 18:20:39
He loved his mum, pets, was always courteous especially to women, described as a good host, was a non smoker, teetotal vegetarian who abhorred animal cruelty. He was also a genocidal maniac prone to violent psychotic fits.

Zari I don't doubt your intellect and all round knowledge at all, but sometimes your posts are as clear as mud. No offence pal you're obviously very bright, but I rarely understand what you're saying.

Ryan.

Hey Ryan, that is to be expected in the absence of personal contact. People have different backgrounds, different analytical processes and different ways of expression. It's impossible for someone to say something and for it to be understood the same way by everyone.
To clarify what I meant by that statement is that, the image in which certain historical figures are presented cannot be accurate. In any two sided conflict the one which dominates gets to establish their version of the events that took place, which we come to call (his+story?). Losers are always portrayed as evil figures because it helps the winning side appear as righteous and their actions justified.
I do not know what kind of person Hitler was, but what one can fault him with is for using the same criminal practices as the allies, namely bombing civilian targets.
Zari

I've read quite a bit about Hitler over the years and he really only has himself to blame for the caricature that has been created in his image.

Churchill authorised the bombing of Berlin in response to the Germans bombing residential areas in London. Hitler then ordered carpet bombing of British cities and London in particular. The allies responded in kind. Britain was defending itself against an aggressor that was trying to destroy it.

I agree there is no moral high ground for either side to stand on with regard to civilian casualties Zari. But the way I see it, Hitler was responsible for the bombing of German cities. Britain had every right to defend itself by all and any means available to them.

Ryan.

Fair point ED001, not withstanding the drunk/bartender comparison. Churchill was indeed provoked by Hitler and took the decision to retaliate. You’re absolutely correct. I guess the point I was trying to make (rather poorly perhaps), was that Hitler’s moral outrage at the bombing of Berlin as though it was a completely unprovoked attack, was not credible, as the bombing was a direct response to the luftwaffe bombing London the previous day. He then used that moral outrage to declare that they would raze British cities to the ground. It was one of many examples of his warped morality.

Ryan.

07 Feb 2014 14:25:18
"they have sown the wind now they shall reap the whirlwind" so spoke your own air Marshall Harris, head of your bomber command.

Hitler certainly had no right to take the moral high ground given the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam earlier.

But what did it achieve? 55000 British casualties, plus the Germans killed. Speer I believe thought it wasn't much of a disruption especially once everything was underground.

And then we have Dresden.

Kim Philby