They showed the whirlwind, and reaped 50 years of Cold War... 50, 000 bomber boys fried for nothing, because German industrial output was limited by lack of RAW MATERIALS. Wonder why Stalin was always smiling so cunningly? Hmmm....
Wow! Sir Arthur Harris was Absolutely Awesome - Bomber Command under his leadership helped immensely, in saving the ' free ' world, from being enslaved by one most Monstrously Evil regime.❤💯%❤ Roland Singh, Canada 🇨🇦
*Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?* Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945) (Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel) For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2. The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers. These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'. *Or, so we were being told...* "The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them." (Source BRITAIN 1939 - 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING) So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work. *When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?* Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying? Nope. Doesn't happen. The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped. Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice. Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep... Need any more evidence? `Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see at 1.34 minutes when the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...' I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error. *Critical question: If they "lie by omission" about something this minor, then what are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?*
The clips are from a BBC TV movie. It's only an hour long unfortunately. Though does a good job of giving Arthur some humanity and doesn't just label him a war criminal.
The ethics of area bombing and it's argument can not be argued in terms of any current modern political concept. We have no moral choice but to use surgical and strategic bombing as our current enemies are ruthless religious tinpot dictatorships in the middle of a civil war. This was not the case in 1939
They showed the whirlwind, and reaped 50 years of Cold War... 50, 000 bomber boys fried for nothing, because German industrial output was limited by lack of RAW MATERIALS. Wonder why Stalin was always smiling so cunningly? Hmmm....
@@ralphbernhard1757 German industrial output may have been limited but nobody was going to sit by saying "Oh the Germans will run out of stuff" Nobody wanted the war to last any longer than it needed to.
@@BigFujiLittleFilm Whoever said that British leaders had to sit by and do nothing? The issue is about what was *effective* for the war effort, and these leaders making their decisions using the information available at the time. At the same time, to consider the defense of the British Empire against rivals. Here, they failed. The simple fact that German production was not mainly limited by the bombing, but by 2 main factors: manpower and raw materials. A simple reference to any geography school book would have revealed this. Raw materials was not secret. As long as "manpower" was (say 75%) occupied on the Eastern front, German production would not rise. As long as Germany did not break out of Europe, *raw materials* would determine the limitations of production. Nothing else. In case you disagree, why was German/Austrian-Hungarian production so low when compared to Allied production in WW1? *(note, no strategic bombing at all)* Do you realize who *did* benefit from wasting away the resources of the British Empire?
@@ralphbernhard1757 I really don't udnerstand what you're getting at. The objective was to win the war at all costs. The British Empire was never going to last the 20th Century, not after two global wars. The objective of RAF Bomber Command was to destroy German industry as much as possible, this was done by bombing cities with important sectors such as transport and manufacturing.
@@BigFujiLittleFilm *The British Empire could have lasted forever, right through to today.* Not in the form as it existed in around 1900, but with wiser leaders it could have "morphed" over time, in order to become a *real* Commonwealth with equal partners. In other words, a "pound block" of sorts, which did not try to dominate the Commonwealth, in line with the changing world of "freedom, liberty and self-determination" which began sweeping the world... *"Those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing"* (Friedrich the Great) This Empire/Commonwealth/"Pound Block of sorts" needed to be protected on the continent of Europe, *not globally* which was impossible from the early-20th Century This protection could only be achieved by "balancing powers". www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power ...and/or avoiding a single power from gaining full control of most of Europe... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History As history turned out, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism and liberalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days" of ruling subjects by force.
The big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the *biggest of all...* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually *protected in Europe* by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... *Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.* Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. And down went the British Empire too...
What was the "return on investment" for the Allied war machine? What was the value of a policy of killing "enemy" civilians. How much "bang for the buck" did it result in. Google, download and read: BRITAIN 1939 - 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING One can spend a few hours reading this....OR...I'll condense it into a few short lines for those who are too lazy. Sending out soldiers with orders to kill civilians was (and still is) ineffective. Sending out soldiers with orders to kill civilians was counter productive. Sending out soldiers with orders to kill civilians was stupid. The resources wasted (between a third and half, depending on the criterea used) on "flattening Germany" during WW2 was not available *to stand up to Communism and The American Century* after the war was over... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century ...and down went London's interests... Time for others to "rule the world".
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for fools who don't understand how the world works... Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, *but also rivals.* Each wanting to be on top once the war was over... *At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...* But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations. Strange... Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world *"you shall not have nuclear weapons!"* www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which *was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...* Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was *"no, it's mine".* Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me. A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself? Sounds like a serious control-freak issue...
For all those "reap as you sow"-bible thumpers... *The Bible says that the rightious shall inherit the Earth.* Meaning that if one is rightious, one does not have to doubt the own strength, because one will always unite the bigger part of the Earth, which is other rightious people behind one's own cause... Correct? No need to "ally with the devil then". Correct? So if the British Empire was so rightious, why did it end up *"fighting on the beaches and in the hills"* unable to inspire millions of other rightious and ended up *"very well then alone"* until 1941 when the USA was drawn into WW2? Hmmmmm??
@@sirarthurbomberharris3688 Of course they were. Apart from soldiers from the Empire and a few international volunteers, who were there? Are you saying Churchill was lying?
Superb work
10/10 would reap the whirlwind again.
They showed the whirlwind, and reaped 50 years of Cold War...
50, 000 bomber boys fried for nothing, because German industrial output was limited by lack of RAW MATERIALS.
Wonder why Stalin was always smiling so cunningly?
Hmmm....
Sigma male grindset
Wow! Sir Arthur Harris was Absolutely Awesome - Bomber Command under his leadership helped immensely, in saving the ' free ' world, from being enslaved by one most Monstrously Evil regime.❤💯%❤ Roland Singh, Canada 🇨🇦
*Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?*
Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945)
(Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel)
For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2.
The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers.
These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'.
*Or, so we were being told...*
"The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them."
(Source BRITAIN 1939 - 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING)
So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work.
*When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?*
Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying?
Nope.
Doesn't happen.
The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped.
Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice.
Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep...
Need any more evidence?
`Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see at 1.34 minutes when the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...'
I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error.
*Critical question: If they "lie by omission" about something this minor, then what are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?*
Love the sound of Jerry malding in the morning with a torn arsehole.
I would watch the shit out of this if it was a tv show. There probably was one 30 years ago
The clips are from a BBC TV movie. It's only an hour long unfortunately. Though does a good job of giving Arthur some humanity and doesn't just label him a war criminal.
@@bomberfox8360 know what it's called
@@ethanbennett9000 It's just called Bomber Harris (1989)
The ethics of area bombing and it's argument can not be argued in terms of any current modern political concept. We have no moral choice but to use surgical and strategic bombing as our current enemies are ruthless religious tinpot dictatorships in the middle of a civil war. This was not the case in 1939
They showed the whirlwind, and reaped 50 years of Cold War...
50, 000 bomber boys fried for nothing, because German industrial output was limited by lack of RAW MATERIALS.
Wonder why Stalin was always smiling so cunningly?
Hmmm....
@@ralphbernhard1757 German industrial output may have been limited but nobody was going to sit by saying "Oh the Germans will run out of stuff" Nobody wanted the war to last any longer than it needed to.
@@BigFujiLittleFilm Whoever said that British leaders had to sit by and do nothing? The issue is about what was *effective* for the war effort, and these leaders making their decisions using the information available at the time.
At the same time, to consider the defense of the British Empire against rivals. Here, they failed.
The simple fact that German production was not mainly limited by the bombing, but by 2 main factors: manpower and raw materials. A simple reference to any geography school book would have revealed this. Raw materials was not secret.
As long as "manpower" was (say 75%) occupied on the Eastern front, German production would not rise.
As long as Germany did not break out of Europe, *raw materials* would determine the limitations of production.
Nothing else.
In case you disagree, why was German/Austrian-Hungarian production so low when compared to Allied production in WW1?
*(note, no strategic bombing at all)*
Do you realize who *did* benefit from wasting away the resources of the British Empire?
@@ralphbernhard1757 I really don't udnerstand what you're getting at. The objective was to win the war at all costs. The British Empire was never going to last the 20th Century, not after two global wars.
The objective of RAF Bomber Command was to destroy German industry as much as possible, this was done by bombing cities with important sectors such as transport and manufacturing.
@@BigFujiLittleFilm *The British Empire could have lasted forever, right through to today.*
Not in the form as it existed in around 1900, but with wiser leaders it could have "morphed" over time, in order to become a *real* Commonwealth with equal partners.
In other words, a "pound block" of sorts, which did not try to dominate the Commonwealth, in line with the changing world of "freedom, liberty and self-determination" which began sweeping the world...
*"Those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing"*
(Friedrich the Great)
This Empire/Commonwealth/"Pound Block of sorts" needed to be protected on the continent of Europe, *not globally* which was impossible from the early-20th Century
This protection could only be achieved by "balancing powers".
www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
...and/or avoiding a single power from gaining full control of most of Europe...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
As history turned out, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism and liberalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days" of ruling subjects by force.
Very nicely done
His line on ethics had me rolling...not in my book, you're keeping a diary what about you...oh they reaped it
What movie is this Arthur Harris portrayal from?
It's from a 1989 BBC Drama called Bomber Harris
Reeee~
cope
Evil bears!!!
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the *biggest of all...*
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually *protected in Europe* by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
*Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.*
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
What was the "return on investment" for the Allied war machine?
What was the value of a policy of killing "enemy" civilians.
How much "bang for the buck" did it result in.
Google, download and read:
BRITAIN 1939 - 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING
One can spend a few hours reading this....OR...I'll condense it into a few short lines for those who are too lazy.
Sending out soldiers with orders to kill civilians was (and still is) ineffective.
Sending out soldiers with orders to kill civilians was counter productive.
Sending out soldiers with orders to kill civilians was stupid.
The resources wasted (between a third and half, depending on the criterea used) on "flattening Germany" during WW2 was not available *to stand up to Communism and The American Century* after the war was over...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and down went London's interests...
Time for others to "rule the world".
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for fools who don't understand how the world works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, *but also rivals.*
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
*At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...*
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world *"you shall not have nuclear weapons!"*
www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which *was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...*
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was *"no, it's mine".*
Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
Sounds like a serious control-freak issue...
@the mememinator Ignorance is bliss.
I know.
Stupidity rocks....
You won't get promoted to field marshal, Fritz.
@@nottherealpaulsmith Its not something I strive for.
You on the other hand, in "kiddie killing is cool"-mode, won't be promoted to 3-digit IQ soon.
For all those "reap as you sow"-bible thumpers...
*The Bible says that the rightious shall inherit the Earth.*
Meaning that if one is rightious, one does not have to doubt the own strength, because one will always unite the bigger part of the Earth, which is other rightious people behind one's own cause...
Correct?
No need to "ally with the devil then".
Correct?
So if the British Empire was so rightious, why did it end up *"fighting on the beaches and in the hills"* unable to inspire millions of other rightious and ended up *"very well then alone"* until 1941 when the USA was drawn into WW2?
Hmmmmm??
Take your medication Bernhard.
@@thewitchdoctor1521 Why don't you rather answer the question?
Why was the "oh so rightious" Empire "fighting on the beaches" all by themselves?
@@ralphbernhard1757 They weren't alone.
@@sirarthurbomberharris3688 Of course they were.
Apart from soldiers from the Empire and a few international volunteers, who were there?
Are you saying Churchill was lying?
@@ralphbernhard1757 Britain was not alone, but Churchill was also not wrong. Britain was the last nation in Europe standing up to the Germans.