Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Re: Good -vs- bad? Nah.
Posted by:
cate
()
Date: October 09, 2002 06:24AM
<HTML>That's interesting Robert
Naturally you wouldn't expect those who had suffered in the blitz to be particularly moved by the suffering experienced by enemy civillians when it was 'their turn'. You're right, of course that contributed to the lack of scruple in Bomber Command when it came to 'reprisals', which however you dress it up was what their intensive campaign on German cities was. There was a widespread glow of satisfaction that we were dishing out a taste of out their own medicine.
But that was not universal. My own mother lost her sister and three young nieces in the London Blitz, but she said a shudder still passed through her when she later used to see and hear the waves of bombers going over to Germany at the thought of what those 'poor people' were in for. She worked in an aircraft factory, and eventually requested and got a transfer to the Land Army because she hated the thought of what she was making was going to be used for.
'They did it to us is first' is precisely the justification of the kindergarten Dietzsch was referring to. Even making allowances for the operational need to take a robust approach to moral nicety in pusuit of total war sometimes, this was a morally repugnant and unacceptable policy. If we lose sight of humanity in a war altogether we diminish our entitlement to congratulate ourselves on the justness and ethical rectitude of our cause.
Incidentally though, I wouldn't be a great one for witch hunting out those who might be culpable en masse later. I also believe we need to take cognisance of the kind of pressures and emotional duress war places people under, before we rush to judgement with the benefit of hindsight. We do so from the safety bought for us largely by the actions and decisions of those same individuals.The point should be to examine and learn from the past, acknowledging the mistakes, including our own, not airbrush them out.
Rgds
Cate</HTML>
Naturally you wouldn't expect those who had suffered in the blitz to be particularly moved by the suffering experienced by enemy civillians when it was 'their turn'. You're right, of course that contributed to the lack of scruple in Bomber Command when it came to 'reprisals', which however you dress it up was what their intensive campaign on German cities was. There was a widespread glow of satisfaction that we were dishing out a taste of out their own medicine.
But that was not universal. My own mother lost her sister and three young nieces in the London Blitz, but she said a shudder still passed through her when she later used to see and hear the waves of bombers going over to Germany at the thought of what those 'poor people' were in for. She worked in an aircraft factory, and eventually requested and got a transfer to the Land Army because she hated the thought of what she was making was going to be used for.
'They did it to us is first' is precisely the justification of the kindergarten Dietzsch was referring to. Even making allowances for the operational need to take a robust approach to moral nicety in pusuit of total war sometimes, this was a morally repugnant and unacceptable policy. If we lose sight of humanity in a war altogether we diminish our entitlement to congratulate ourselves on the justness and ethical rectitude of our cause.
Incidentally though, I wouldn't be a great one for witch hunting out those who might be culpable en masse later. I also believe we need to take cognisance of the kind of pressures and emotional duress war places people under, before we rush to judgement with the benefit of hindsight. We do so from the safety bought for us largely by the actions and decisions of those same individuals.The point should be to examine and learn from the past, acknowledging the mistakes, including our own, not airbrush them out.
Rgds
Cate</HTML>
