[RodM]

Hi,

for those that think the Bomber Command casualty figures are misleading, firstly, they are OFFICIAL figures but, of course, only refer to the service joined.

Yes, many other nationalities served in the RAF but then again many other nationalities served in the RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF (There are many NZers who died serving with the RAAF and many Aussies who died serving with the RNZAF). However, I doubt if this would affect the casualty figures by more than around 5%. Reading some of the posts above, I am not sure if there is a misunderstanding about what service with an RAF squadron meant. Any member of the RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, PAF, SAAF could serve in any RAF/RAAF/RCAF/PAF/SAAF squadron without affecting their status. For example, almost all pre-Pearl Harbor US deaths would have come under either RAF or RCAF statistics. However, when viewed in terms of overall RAF casualties '39-45, such a statistical abnormality would be a drop in the ocean.

Casualty figures for other Commands of the RAF will probably provide different statistics BUT I would believe the overall trend would be the same - mostly British deaths followed by Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis/Poles (that is just a reflection on the contingent size of each country's contribution).

In terms of modern history documentaries, I speak in generic terms not national terms. I don't care what country made a documentary when it is unbalanced and filled with error. Stating that such-and-such a country produces bad documentaries is, in itself, a biased and unbalanced view.

A common theme, for example, is an over-emphasis of the war against Germany in the West. Look at any set of statistics and it is obvious that the bulk of the ground fighting, in terms of manpower and machinery and casualties was in the east.

Another modern misconception is that the USAAF only precision-bombed and the RAF only area-bombed in the European theatre. I won't argue on this point; I only suggest that any one in disagreement with this broad statement does some basic research.

I would find a 'Britain stood alone' documentary every bit as offensive as the 'America won the Pacific war alone' documentary (of which I have seen many and they are not British-made).

Just remember that the researchers of such documentaries just use other people's research materials (and mistakes). I doubt that you will find many exploring original archival documents (and I speak as someone who does do original research with all the inherant problems of reconciling contradictions).

For anyone with axes to grind, back up your assertations with facts...

Cheers

Rod