Quote:
Originally Posted by tcolvin
John, as you are an expert in these matters, perhaps you could comment on the truth of the following letter by another distinguished expert, Phillip Knightley (author of Bodyguard Of Lies) in today's Guardian;
"The important point is not who bombed what and why, but who started it all. We did. On the night of 10-11 May 1940 the RAF bombed München-Gladbach without provocation from Germany. The raid did little damage and cost few lives, but it was thought important enough at the time to be kept from the British public because of its doubtful psychological effects. It was only revealed in 1944 when a former Air Ministry official, JM Spaight, wrote a book called Bombing Vindicated, and is not well-known today. Phillip Knightley London
If Knightley is right, and I suspect he is, but please confirm it, then perhaps you would like to revisit your point 1 above.
Re your point 2, I would ask you to point out where I have said that wars are run on the principles set down in documents at Conferences, and therefore why you say that I am being unreal.
And finally would you please explain what you are saying, or implying.
Are you saying that everything in war is justified?
For example was the Holocaust justified?
Was the shooting of British Commandos justified; or the killing of British aircrew who had been shot down and captured?
What exactly are you trying to say, John?
Tony.
|
Not an expert, Tony. No need for piss-taking.
Point 1. I do believe Luftwaffe bombers were over Britain as early as February 1940. Do check up on a certain, relatively famous, pilot who brought one down. I won't say who, because, you being an expert, will already know. Rather beats May 1940 by a few months, what?
Point 2. Go back and check your earlier posts. Unless you've edited them heavily, I do recall (I can't be arsed going back and quoting them ad-infinitum) you reference several meetings/conferences (I won't get into semantics, as you rightly mention earlier) in the decades before WW2 where the rules/principles (insert your own term if you wish) were set down. I do recall you appeared to set great store by some of the points agreed at said meetings/conferences. As for being real. I'm sure we at least agree war is a dirty business, and in war, all kinds of things happen, good and bad. The purpose is to win, and if that means you bomb the shit out of the opposition, and end up winning, then that's what happens. The problem being that Governments go to war, and the ordinary Joe ends up taking the shit and the deaths. And as for Coventry, I am continually amazed at the amount of bleeding heart stuff that one hears about it (and I'm not being callous when I say that). Ask most people about which city got hammered the most after London in 1940, for example, and you can bet Coventry will will come out on top by a comfortable margin. No way. It was my home city, Liverpool, which took the second biggest battering after London. And continued to do so into 1941, particularly in the May Blitz in 1941.
And trying to lure me into even commenting about these things:
"...Are you saying that everything in war is justified?
For example was the Holocaust justified?
Was the shooting of British Commandos justified; or the killing of British aircrew who had been shot down and captured?..."
just doesn't work. You're just being a smart-arse again, like in the other thread.
You really do need to get your facts right before you post...