Posted on 05/25/2009 4:24:19 AM PDT by yankeedame
The RAF bombing raids in Normandy following the D-Day invasion were 'close to a war crime', a leading British historian has claimed.
Antony Beevor has singled out Bomber Command's massive raids on the key city of Caen for particular criticism,...
...made ahead of next week's 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings.
Beevor was accused of trying to generate publicity for his latest book...
Caen became a crucible of ferocious fighting during the campaign due to its vital strategic position...
Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery hoped his troops would capture Caen on D-Day, June 6, 1944, but... German defenders repelled repeated attacks....
The RAF carried out two major bombing raids on Caen...
...British Lancaster and Halifax bombers missed virtually all the German positions on the edge of the city and instead reduced the centre to rubble...
The number of deaths from both raids is disputed, but may have totalled as many as 5,000.
Shell: The RAF bombed Caen twice, once on D-Day and again a
month later on July 7 - to open the way for a major assault the next day
Missed target: A huge formation of 467 British Lancaster and
Halifax (pictured) bombers missed virtually all the German
positions on the edge of the city and instead reduced the centre
Of Caen to rubble
In his book,"D-Day: The Battle for Normandy", Beevor argues that the bombing was a military blunder, as Caen's rubble-strewn ruins blocked the advance of Allied tanks and were relatively easy for the Germans to defend....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I do not believe the RAF’s intelligence was faulty.....Churchill was just hell-bent on taking all the oil in this town.
Same, Same the earlier bombing of the Abbey of Monte Cassino in Italy. If war were without life-costing mistakes there wouldn't be battles - darn humans.
I’m curious...would Napoleon be accused of war crimes today?
Would Robert E. Lee be accused of war crimes today?
Would George Washington be accused of war crimes today?
Would Custer be accused of war crimes today (if he was dead on the campaign field anyway)?
Would Sherman be accused of war crimes today?
Would Mark Antony be accused of war crimes today?
Would Stephen the Great be accused of war crimes today?
After a while...historians burn every bridge that they could have crossed...and then they tend to be anything but a historian.
Us or them. I choose US. Good show, PM Churchill...
We should have decimated every nook and cranny where the 9/11 terrorists hailed from following that day.
we havent fought a war to win since WWII and it shows.
to hell with surgical strikes, bring back dumb bomb, carpet bombing.
War itself is a War Crime.
War is not something to be played at and drawn out, whatever needs doing to end a conflict as soon as possible must be done...it’s better for the victor as well as the vanquished...get it over and be done with it so a fresh start can be made by all. This is what needed to be done by Israel in the ME but they have always been constrained by outside entities, if we had fought WW2 like Israel has had to fight its enemies we would still be squabbling with the Japanese Empire.
War crimes can only be committed by white Europeans or those of white European descent.
A: Yes.
But then, you’d have to realize that the accusations would be coming from an academic - in ivory towers.
Looks to me like just another whining limey poofter.
Cheers!
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night
only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
~George Orwell
“The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort,
has no chance of being free, unless made so and kept so,
by the exertions of better men than himself.”
~John Stuart Mill
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed;
if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly;
then you may come to the moment when you will have to fight
when all the odds are against you - and there is only a precarious chance of survival.
But there may be even a worse case.
You may have to fight even when there is no hope of victory,
because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
~Winston Churchill
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free
unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
~John Stuart Mill
War crimes for nations is the same as hate crime for individuals.
Neither exist except in the minds of Liberals and those of the victim mentality.
So true. Great thread.
Safely ensconced in a comfortable study, surrounded by intellectual and enlightening tomes, it’s a bit easier to view the actions taken so many years back through the rose colored glasses of contemporary progressivism. It’s wrong..but, it’s easier.
The fact is that the munitions of the day were not really targetable, and were indiscriminate in their destructive force. The decisions made in support of the D-Day invasion were taken in the context of the available intelligence, examined by professional military expertise, and executed with prayers for quick success.
To second guess all that is pure folly.
What we want today is victory without the mess. However, by placing unrealistic constraints on our military to prevent “war crimes” won’t work out that way. What will happen is that we will punish our soldiers, embolden our enemies, and practically guarantee defeat.
Warcrime
Warcrime
Fair is fair!
It’s awfully easy to look at today’s precision guided munitions which can almost be used to kill an individual person in the field, versus WW II’s more or less carpet bombing of a facility. There is no comparison, and anyone who makes that comparison is a historical illiterate and should be ignored, IMHO
Concur. The only way you really win a war is to exhaust the enemy and break his will. Who decides when a war is over? The vanquished—for he has to know that he has lost. Surgical strikes may hurt the enemy, but will also convince him that the opponent isn’t willing to do what is necessary to win. Ultimately, this just emboldens and strengthens the enemy.
There are very few, if any, examples of conflicts being settled before one side is broken.
War isn't tiddly winks, people actually die during a war, and that includes civilians and others you don't necessarily want to die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.