The Oxford dictionary describes history as “the methodical record of events, past events, study of these” No one is denying what happened in a lot of these subjects (not just the bomber offensive), it is whys ? that are in question. All humans are going to have a certain view or prejudice on the circumstances that caused something to happen. Even those who try and be as impartial as possible will probably lean in a certain direction.
What needs to be stood up for is the views and motives of those who took part in any debated action. Popular “TV documentary” history needs to be monitored to ensure any imbalances are addressed and inaccuracies not perpetuated. Those of us on this forum & others like it, probably have a greater understanding than of what occurred in this area of history than your average TV viewer/Sunday Magazine reader. I’m always hearing someone who saw a programme on the “last flying Spitfire, it’s rare, there is only 10 left in the world you know” “I saw it on telly, it must be true”.
Another example, I knew about the hideous losses in the WWI trenches and the “Lions lead by Donkeys” view of the allied generals who didn’t care.
A few years ago I read a book reviewing this. It agreed C*ck ups were made through lack of understanding of modern mechanised warfare, but also pointed out that the generals, Haig in particular were not as uncaring as made out. OK, that’s one authors view, however he pointed out that General Haig started the Poppy day appeal which is, I assume, the reason the old Poppies on Poppy day had the words HAIG FUND moulded into the black centre piece. A fact I did not know and one which altered my perception somewhat.
I was born 23 years after WWII ended so I am not that qualified to pass judgement on those who were there. I understand how they feared for the safety of their loved ones and all the other things they cherished. In a lot of cases they were driven by a sense duty and right against the injustice of the Nazis regime. My parents were children in Crayford, Kent, under the bombing run into London during WWII and I understand how my grandparents felt. My mums father was in the Homeguard & kept a rifle in the spare room. I get the impression if it got to a point when it couldn’t be used for defence any longer, he would have used it to ensured my Nan or Mum would not have suffered in any way.
WRT the Bomber offensive, I can see how the scorched earth policy of the German army as it advanced through Russia, the bombing of London 57 nights in a row during the blitz, etc..helped set the mould for peoples (the allies) thinking.
I spent 4 years living and working in Darmstadt, Germany which was firebombed in Sept 1944 with approx 12,000 casualties. Whilst there, I heard the opinions of the locals who were angry at the tragic loss of life and having their fine city razed to the ground. An action that they felt was not justified by the necessity of targeting military installations. Human tragedy aside, I appreciated what a loss to the world the architecture and other historic culture was, as it was/is in any city destroyed by war. What came across is that no one seemed to have explained what lead up to it ( leaving aside the then current military objectives). It was always a sensitive subject so I didn’t delve too deeply into what was taught.
I’m not passing judgement either way, just trying to present how in this case things were probably affected by the emotions of the time in addition to military necessity, which current historians may not fully pick up on & thus present a distorted view.
The whole picture did not seem to have been presented and that is what needs to be guarded against.
Sign In
