Bombing of German cities during World War II - Page 52 - Historum

**Perix** · February 20th, 2012, 11:12 AM

i think it was more retaliation than hope for effectiveness. I've choosen "It may have been legitimate in the beginning, but should have been stopped later on in the war"

Rocksteadyeddie · February 20th, 2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perix

i think it was more retaliation than hope for effectiveness. I've choosen "It may have been legitimate in the beginning, but should have been stopped later on in the war"

Maybe but I still feel very uneasy about the true motivations.
I do realize that if I had been alive during the war I probably would have supported the bombing of Germany. Doesn't make it right though in retrospect imho. You may as well walk into a nursery and toss in a hand granade.

**redcoat** · February 20th, 2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beorna

Ok, it sounds a bit different now, but nevertheless the "I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our right*ful posi*tion among the nations" stands. So Churchill had changed his mind already in 1938. What was responsible for it and when did it happen then?

I know of no favourable references to Hitler by Churchill without a qualification of some sort. I think Linschoten is correct in that 'a Hitler' refers not to Hitler and his creed as such, but a 'strong man' leader.

**redcoat** · February 20th, 2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perix

i think it was more retaliation than hope for effectiveness. I've choosen "It may have been legitimate in the beginning, but should have been stopped later on in the war"

It doesn't work that way, if it was legal in 1941 it's still legal in 1945.

**beorna** · February 20th, 2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

I know of no favourable references to Hitler by Churchill without a qualification of some sort. I think Linschoten is correct in that 'a Hitler' refers not to Hitler and his creed as such, but a 'strong man' leader.

Ok, I accept that. But then his statement was at least unwise. As I said, you don't get a small "strong man".

**redcoat** · February 20th, 2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beorna

Ok, I accept that. But then his statement was at least unwise. As I said, you don't get a small "strong man".

Not really, he was just making his position clear. In that he didn't oppose a strong Germany as such, but he did oppose a Germany which used threats and aggression to achieve it's aims within Europe.

**Perix** · February 20th, 2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocksteadyeddie

I do realize that if I had been alive during the war I probably would have supported the bombing of Germany.

Of course! Maybe I suportedeither, if english. But I doubt I'd standed upon my feelings if would had images from bombed cities, like today

**Perix** · February 20th, 2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redcoat

It doesn't work that way, if it was legal in 1941 it's still legal in 1945.

Yes, but is not about legal

Brunel · February 21st, 2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linschoten

Support for eugenics, and even for sterilization of certain classes of people, notably the mentally deficient, was surprisingly common before the war, among people both of left and right wing views. An interesting article on Churchill's views on the matter here:
Churchill and Eugenics
According to that article, legislation was actually passed in Canada between the wars to permit involuntary sterilization of the mentally deficient.

It was mostly the Left who supported eugenics.

In fact, Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland - a lefty - has written a novel called Pantheon which is set in 1940, about a topic which he calls "the left's dirty little secret."

The novel (which Freedland wrote under the pseudomym Sam Bourne) follows an Oxford academic deemed unfit to serve in the war against Germany and his desperate search to find his missing wife and child. The story turns, however, on what could be called the dirty little secret of the Anglo-American left – the attraction of some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, from Bertrand Russell to George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes, towards an idea that would now be deemed horribly close to Nazism. That idea is eugenics. In conversation with James Purnell, Jonathan discusses why so many luminaries, especially on the left, were drawn to the notion of breeding a better class of man – and what the legacy of that past might mean for today.

mofli87 · February 22nd, 2012, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linschoten

It's absurd to blame the allies for the German occupation of Hungary! Hungary was allied to Germany, with Hungarians fighting on the Eastern front, and then engaged in nnegotiations with the allies (talk of pursiut of self-interest!); the fact that it was playing that double game was led to the occupation.

Did I blame the allies for anything? I think I've just written down some facts. Like it or not.