PBS Documentary Purposefully Desecrates World War II Vets

[Bluehawk]

Originally Posted by Leo2man

And of course, when one looks at the Western Front versus the Eastern front in both world wars, the Russian/Soviet contribution to winning the war far outwieghed anything the West contributed. Not that the Russians/Soviets could have won the war on their own: just to say that their contribution was key to the winning of the war, which of course supports Ferguson's argument of an unholy alliance...

Let the Soviets have tried to win WWII without the other allies...

They'd still be fighting, and Poland/Czechoslovakia would probably still be part of the Third Reich.

The only thing they had going for them was plenty of petroleum and horrible winters even they could not stand to deal with.

And, while we're at it... the bombing of Dresden was a British idea. They did day one, and we did day two.

If Germany hadn't surrendered, we'd probably have delivered one of the first nukes on Berlin instead.

So... strategy schmategy.

The war got over with.

Well-meaning Pacifists consistently confuse things as they want things to be with things as they are... anyone undertaking any aspect of warfare just has to accept that as part of the inevitable equation... and try to win the damn thing anyway.

The PBS "History Detectives" program is pretty good in most ways, but there can be NO doubt whatsoever that it falls on the side of Leftist political correctness almost constantly... in fact it goes out of its way to dredge up some sort of redemptive social propaganda message (involving racial minorities and females, naturally ) in the most insignificant historical coincidences. In fact, I'd venture that their producers purposefully select the stories MOST likely to touch upon Leftist themes from among the hundreds of submissions they get out of the viewers.

Unbiased they ain't... in the least.

[Old Fart]

I hate to break it to these pacifist Morons but war is totalitarian.
You totally win it or you totally don't!
We've sure had a couple examples of what happens when you screw around at it, Korea and Viet Nam.

[Woodmonkey]

That's a good way of putting it, Denis.

[Old Fart]

Originally Posted by Leo2man

The documentary is called "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century". It is the companion piece to Niall Ferguson's book by the same title.

Essentially, his argument is that the 20th century world was in the midst of a period of continuous conflict that was broken occasionally by periods of brief calm. He looks at the Allied tactics of World War II and makes the argument that they were more or less based on totalitarian tactics.

Ferguson: "The aim of strategic bombing was . . . in large measure to kill German civilians by destroying the most densely populated parts of the country. And it only really worked when the level of destruction reached apocalyptic levels. It behooves us all to stare this reality in the face, by trying to understand what it was like to be on the receiving end of firestorms like the ones that engulfed Hamburg or Dresden."

You'll notice he managed to leave out "The Blitz" of England.

If one looks at the results of strategic bombing, the data shows that it only marginally affected German wartime production. Factories adapted to the bombing, often moving underground, and it was really only the lack of workers and strategic overseas resources that slowed production in any real measure.

That's a crock of Krap! We bombed every military production site we could into oblivion.
He also neglects to mention that WW2 was the first true "Air War" and even though the Norden bomb sight was the most accurate targeting device invented at the time, "accuracy" from 30,000 feet was measured in miles, not inches.
That said, the populations of Germany and Japan were wholeheartedly behind Hitler and Hirohito, no workers, no supplies, NO WAR!

And of course, when one looks at the Western Front versus the Eastern front in both world wars, the Russian/Soviet contribution to winning the war far outwieghed anything the West contributed. Not that the Russians/Soviets could have won the war on their own: just to say that their contribution was key to the winning of the war, which of course supports Ferguson's argument of an unholy alliance.

Did he mention that Russia had signed a non-agression pact with Germany and the Communists would have been perfectly to sit the war out until they realized that Hitler was comming after them too?
The eastern front was an absolute blood bath for the Russsians and the only reasons they weren't speaking German were OUR supplies and the legendary brutal Russian winters.
We raced across Europe as fast as we could because we KNEW what was going to happen to any country occupied by the Communist Russians, it was called the Soviet Union.
Anybody old enough to remember the Berlin wall and the Berlin airlift understood that.

Revisionist history to be certain, but perhaps more realistic than the current version.

What "current version"? You mean the one that states that America came to the aid of a thoroughly defeated world under the boot of Japan and Germany?
Through my affiliation with the Military Heritage and Aviation Museum, I have the honor of speaking with many elderly Europeans, including Germans and Japanese. Though they mourn the ones they lost during the war because of OUR bombs, they speak quite fondly about the kindness and the mercy of the American troops who helped them rebuild after the folly of their leaders and the imbarrassment of following these leaders into oblivion.
The "revisionist history" is being written by the fat and comfortable who have never felt the real consequences of war and ONLY have the freedom to rewrite OUR history because to the efforts of America's greatest generation, especially those laying under the grave stones at Arlington, and many unmarked graves all over Europe and the South Pacific.

[Leo2man]

Interesting quote attributed to Winston Churchill about the Allied strategic bombing campaign, from shortly before the end of the Second World War:

'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'

It was interesting that in the last few months of the war, when most German industrial centres had been largely destroyed, the bombing campaign shifted to targets that included a large number of towns with no signficiant military or industrial capability. Witness the attacks on Wurzburg or Pforzheim.

Interesting too that the raid on Dresden which sparks the horrific fire bombing was not against an important military or industrial target, but was rather intended to "cause confusion in the evacuation from the east" and "hamper the movements of the troops from the east." In other words, attacking cities like Berlin, Dresden and Liepzig was intended to aid the Russian advance on Berlin, through the targeting of fleeing civilian refugees.

Churchill later tried to dissasociate himself with this strategy, calling the bombing of the cities "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction."

This is the point that Ferguson makes.

What "current version"? You mean the one that states that America came to the aid of a thoroughly defeated world under the boot of Japan and Germany?
Through my affiliation with the Military Heritage and Aviation Museum, I have the honor of speaking with many elderly Europeans, including Germans and Japanese. Though they mourn the ones they lost during the war because of OUR bombs, they speak quite fondly about the kindness and the mercy of the American troops who helped them rebuild after the folly of their leaders and the imbarrassment of following these leaders into oblivion.
The "revisionist history" is being written by the fat and comfortable who have never felt the real consequences of war and ONLY have the freedom to rewrite OUR history because to the efforts of America's greatest generation, especially those laying under the grave stones at Arlington, and many unmarked graves all over Europe and the South Pacific.

The 'current version' refers to that proselytized by Churchill among others, that lingers on today, that argues the Westerm theatre of operations was the most important in the war, that the Russian contribution is denigrated and reduced to a mere footnote in history, and was in large measure the result of the post-war writings of a number of former adversaries (Germans in particular) who sought to downplay the Russian impact on the war and the resultiant social and race implications, by focussing instead on the Western Allies contributions.

Revising history to better reflect reality is not something to be feared, Rush Limbaugh's tirades aside. If you haven't read Ferguson's books, I would recommend them as an excellent start point.

It would allow a better and more informed critique of the PBS mini-series, if indeed such a critique is required.

[Bluehawk]

Originally Posted by Leo2man

...It was interesting that in the last few months of the war, when most German industrial centres had been largely destroyed, the bombing campaign shifted to targets that included a large number of towns with no signficiant military or industrial capability. Witness the attacks on Wurzburg or Pforzheim.

Some significant portion of this had to do with indecision on the part of Commanders and political strategists as to what, in fact, was the BEST use of aerial bombardment... a truly contentious argument that had been going on since WWI in Western military circles; particularly in view of the relatively primitive accuracy of bombing. A good argument might be made today that carpet bombing of Dresden would not be necessary now given highly accurate targeting available.

The conflict was always whether aerial bombing was to be designated in support of ground troops directly (as with artillery) or to be used for psychological warfare (aka "shock and awe"). Aircraft, from the time of the Signal Corps days were perceived (by Army) to be like mortars, in support of Army/Marine infantry.

In the latter part of WWII, clearly and by most reasonable published opinion, much of the bombing was done for psych war purposes, on purpose. It is impossible to say whether or not it was warranted, and whether or not it was effective... and whether or not a target did or did not have "military or industrial capability." There can be no doubt that massive bombing does have a terrorizing effect on civilians and military alike... which is what you want if there are no other alternatives. 16" Naval guns and 2,000 lb incendiary bombs are the conventional weapons of last resort when infantry cannot be or has not been sufficiently persuasive.

But, the war did end soon thereafter... if that is any measure.

Three months after the operation, Nazi forces surrendered.

[Old Fart]

Was it "psycological" warfare?, I guess you could call it that. That's a nice clinical way to put it. I imagine it would be "psycologically damaging" to no longer have a home, relatives, food and water. It would also be virtually impossible to continue to fight a war.
War is the most brutal, nasty, ugly, thing that man has ever imposed upon his fellow man and we've been at it since the first cave man ever picked up a club. It's not some clean