German historian provokes row over war photos - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

phredgreen · 10-21-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

as seen here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ar...067259,00.html

German historian provokes row over war photos
Luke Harding in Berlin
Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian

A controversial German historian is at the centre of a row over his latest book which includes gruesome photos of German civilians killed by allied bombing during the second world war.

Jörg Friedrich defended the decision yesterday to publish the photographs showing the incinerated bodies of German women and children, most of them killed by British bombs. His book, Fire Sites, published at last week's Frankfurt Book Fair, argues that the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose. He claims that Winston Churchill's decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime.

"The bombing left an entire generation traumatised. But it was never discussed," he told the Guardian.

Mr Friedrich, whose previous book Der Brand or The Fire prompted a storm of publicity and sold 186,000 copies, said that about 600,000 civilians died during the allied bombing of German cities, including 72,000 children. Some 45,000 people died on one night during the immense firestorms that engulfed Hamburg in July 1943. But the German victims were over shadowed by the far greater evil of the Holocaust.

Many Germans regarded the British destruction of their cities as retribution for Nazi crimes, Mr Friedrich said. "The second world war is traditionally portrayed as a struggle between good and evil. But it wasn't as simple as that," he said. The photos in Fire Sites are grim and reveal that many victims were asphyxiated in their cellars. In Dresden, SS workers from a nearby concentration camp were called in to dispose of heaps of bodies.

Policemen, architects and air protection officers took the photos. Most had lain in the archives of German towns for more than half a century, before Mr Friedrich found them. He said yesterday he had approached the National Archives in Kew, west London, for photos of British victims of German bombing but was told they could not be released. His book concedes that Germany started the air war in late 1940, when 14,000 British civilians died in German raids.

He acknowledged that he was a revisionist but said he was describing what happened. "During my public lectures Germans now in their 70s and 80s have stood up. They have described, with tears in their eyes, what happened to their families."

so what do you think? people will forever be showing pictures of the atrocities of the holocaust, but do you think it okay to shroud pictures of the many wounded and killed just because they were on the side of the "bad guys"? when so many people are asking for reparations and apoligies for the misdeeds of the past, should germany hold britain accountable for the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civillians who were destroyed in their own homes?

pocon1 · 10-21-2003, 06:10 PM

From the Article:
In Dresden, SS workers from a nearby concentration camp were called in to dispose of heaps of bodies.

Yeah, the SS workers were pretty good at disposing of heaps of bodies.

I'll discuss this more later, I have homework to finish.

SaltPork · 10-21-2003, 07:02 PM

Since any real response from me WILL result in me being edited, I will refrain. I will say this though, the British and USA did not start WWII, the Germans did.....I need to go now.

pocon1 · 10-21-2003, 07:15 PM

I guess I could go on a big discussion with a few people like I did on a subject similar to this over in the weapons section, But I hope that the majority of people can read through the revisionist history and remember the truth of what really happened. Who started the War, Who bombed Britain, etc...

meepa · 10-21-2003, 07:27 PM

On a side note, bombing Berlin pissed Hitler off, which made him foolishly redirect his aims at London instead of the RAF. That serves a military purpose!

rodgerd · 10-21-2003, 07:27 PM

It's certainly worth acknowledging, especially with war crimes like Dresden. It's likewise worth having a discussion around tactics and targetting of civilians.

That said, it also ought to be noted that bombing of civilian areas in WW II was begun during the Battle of Britain. While the allies may have been wrong to retaliate in the same way, one form of suffering does not excuse perptrating crimes elsewhere (cf Israel/Palestine).

OFKU0 · 10-21-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phredgreen
so what do you think? people will forever be showing pictures of the atrocities of the holocaust, but do you think it okay to shroud pictures of the many wounded and killed just because they were on the side of the "bad guys"?

Lots of people died and many have been forgotten due to whatever the prescribe history is of today is. Don't want to start a big debate but did Germans suffer in WWII? Some did.How about these forgotten people of tragedy and despair in our world of political correctness and revisionist history. Is it biased?Who's to decide?Just one site.Look for more.

http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academi.../holocaust.htm

[/B][/QUOTE]

Fire · 10-21-2003, 10:36 PM

war always kills civilians- by creating a government, people turn over some of their power to it- being a citizen means bearing some of the responsibility for its actions- and the potential reprecussions of warfare- it is not right or good, but if the government that you support starts a war with the rest of the world then bad things are going to tend to happen- likewise, it is difficult to see how a war will unfold untill it is over- who is to say that brittian knew what effect the bombings would have on the course of the war, while they must have known that it would kill many civilians, the objective of war is to cause the enemy to submit, and causing cities to cease to exist in a fire storm probably qualifies as a morale lowering event at the very least

Spartak · 10-22-2003, 02:03 AM

Maybe revenge was involved, who knows ?

Did V-1/2s destroy military targets ?

Maybe the RAF were bombing targets of "strategic interest" (factories etc), and since the guidance of the Lancasters wasn't too flash, the only way to destroy such a target was to drop all the bombs they could on it and hope some would fall on it.

Who knows? Nobody.

onetime2 · 10-22-2003, 03:28 AM

All the innocents who died deserve to have their stories told. IMO, targeting of civilians is wrong. Also wrong, IMO, is judging historical actions in terms of today's morality and standards. Certainly not all Germans were for Hitler but there sure seemed to be a hell of a lot of them on his side at the time. And not all could be said that they were forced into it as there were plenty of supporters among Germans who weren't even in the Fatherland.

homerhop · 10-22-2003, 03:36 AM

As in all conflicts there are 2 civilian populations neither of which should be targeted.Sadly the victors get to show the evils that the loosers have done, and the loosers "deserved" everything they got.
Already I can see this theading in the same direction

thejoker130 · 10-22-2003, 03:45 AM

I remember hearing on TV a few years ago they were interviewing this guy in Zaire when the revolution there was on. he was talking about civilian casulties when he said "When two elephants fight its the grass that gets trampled"

Let Mr Friedrich write his book, people should hear all sides of the story. Its sort of like the american war crimes against the vietnameses civies, the ones we're just now hearing about when the vietnam war's been over for 30+ years. like I said the world needs to hear all sides of the story

Besides the german civilians really got shafted by the allies and even by their own military. German civilians seeking refuge in the subway system from the allied bombing were flooded out by the ss under Hitlers orders because he felt that germans were losing because they were weak.

lurkette · 10-22-2003, 04:00 AM

I don't think it can possibly be a bad thing to show how much suffering is caused by war. It's hard to argue that civilians ever "deserve" to be casualties of war - this is the same argument that justified crashing planes into the World Trade Center. Perhaps they support their government's actions, either actively or passively, but it's hard to believe that they could have exerted much influence over the juggernaut that was Hitler's army.

Although Mr. Friedrich says there was no military purpose for the bombings in the last months of the war, I wonder if the British had the same perspective at the time.

Sledge · 10-22-2003, 04:23 AM

It sucks when you're innocent and you die. Hell, it even sucks when you're NOT innocent and you die. lurkette said it better than me. Regardless of which side was "evil" and which was "good," many civilians died, quite probably unnecessarily; I'm glad people are taking the time to mourn them.

SaltPork · 10-22-2003, 07:10 PM

Let's put things into perspective...The Germans bombed the crap out of London, lots of civilians died. The Brits bombed them back, lots of civilians died. The simple fact of the matter is, it was the 1940's, there was no such thing as precision bombing, all they could do was carpet bombing and hope that a couple of bombs hit their intended targets. I know I'mm oversimplifying, but hopefully you get my point. The Brits simply retaliated against the Germans for what the Germans had done to them. Does it make it right? To the Brits it did, I'm not really one to judge, I wasn't there. Bad things happen when there is a war, sometimes really bad things, but war means killing people, plain and simple; civilians, military, animals, lots of death, especially back then.

Look how war has changed, precision bombing for example. Now we can bomb one house in a neighborhood and not do anything but superficial damage to surrounding buildings, couldn't do that in 1940. Do innocent people still die? Absolutely. Do they deserve to? Maybe, maybe not. The bomb could have killed a terrorist, soldier, leader, etc., you never know. But it could have also killed a child, a mother, a father, etc. There is a lot of uncertainty in war. The bottom line is that if we continue to engage each other in armed conflict, innocent people will die, there are no two ways about it. There will be no avoiding it, ever, unless we stop blowing each other up.

I can feel more ranting coming, it's purposeful, but I don't know how much more any of you would read of it.

Clewd · 10-23-2003, 03:46 AM

The holocaust is a tragedy not because 6 million Jews died but because 6 million people died simply for being Jewish. In the same respect neither British nor German civilians deserve to die simply because they are British or German.

The political beliefs of those civilians or whether or not they belong to the side that started the conflict is meaningless 1. because inevitably some of them are going be truly innocent (opposing Hitler, opposing the war, etc...) 2. because the opposing side is guilty of just as much (supporting the punitive aspects of the treaty of versailles, etc...) and 3. because we realize that even if all those German women and children were fervent supporters of Hitler and the holocaust, killing them will achieve only more hatred and animosity and perpetuate the endless cycle of violence.

VF19 · 11-16-2003, 04:03 PM

A bit late, but, this doesnt match up to the attacks the US made upon Japan (the A-Bomb). Lots of civilians there. No war crimes.

MSD · 11-16-2003, 04:27 PM

To condemn showing dead German civilians would be hypocritical considering the widespread display of pictures of the aftermath of the nuclear attack on Japan, and other famous pictures such as the naked girl covered in napalm from Vietnam.

If we allow people to censor the images of war, we can too easily forget what it is like and why it should only be a last resort.

krwlz · 11-16-2003, 05:26 PM

Go ahead, show the pictures. But the germans elected that fucking demon, and then they want to say it was a war crime to grind his empire into dust?

Instead, why don't we simply report the unslanted facts, consider that that was 50 years ago, and lay it to rest already.

User Name · 11-16-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by krwlz
Go ahead, show the pictures. But the germans elected that fucking demon, and then they want to say it was a war crime to grind his empire into dust?

Instead, why don't we simply report the unslanted facts, consider that that was 50 years ago, and lay it to rest already.

I am sure the 75,000 children didn't "elect that fucking demon."

I am Jewish by ethnicity, by the way.

analog · 11-16-2003, 08:33 PM

Does anyone else find it crude that he's complaining about the loss of innocent life... when that's exactly what the war started over? How can he say, "they killed innocent people in their raids" when the german goverment killed shitloads MORE innocent people for doing nothing other than believing differently than them? Oh, and the raids germany did over the open country of england, ALSO over houses and families, was for what? Were they all military houses?

This guy is bullshit, and looking to make a dollar and a name for himself.

Dragonlich · 11-17-2003, 12:16 PM

As far as I know, the Germans first bombed London by mistake, which led to the British bombing Berlin on purpose, which led to a full-on anti-city campaign on both sides.

However... The Germans were already well-known for bombing civilian areas, as they did in Spain (during the civil war), Poland, the Netherlands, etc.

Now, given that the bombers of that day and age were horribly innacurate, it is only logical that they'd be used like this, especially given the common "total war" philosophies at the time. Anyone was a target, because everyone was part of the war effort. There were no innocent civilians because of this. The civilians killed and maimed one day would not be going back to build tanks and guns the next. Brutal, yes; but in the context of that time, it makes perfect sense.

Today, we "know" that civilians are innocent victims of war; back then they "knew" that they were simply enemies, helping to prolong the war.

(Note: I'm not defending anyone's attacks on civilians; just trying to put it in it's proper context.)

jujueye · 11-17-2003, 02:13 PM

That's not wrong at all. Um...wow, so much to think about here. I believe he has the right to publish the book and the pictures, of course. I think it is far too late for him to point fingers at anybody, but I suppose new books regarding new ideas and stories come out every day, so hey, go for it.

10-21-2003, 07:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
SaltPork Everything's better with bacon Location: In your local grocer's freezer.	Since any real response from me WILL result in me being edited, I will refrain. I will say this though, the British and USA did not start WWII, the Germans did.....I need to go now. __________________ It was like that when I got here....I swear.

10-21-2003, 10:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	war always kills civilians- by creating a government, people turn over some of their power to it- being a citizen means bearing some of the responsibility for its actions- and the potential reprecussions of warfare- it is not right or good, but if the government that you support starts a war with the rest of the world then bad things are going to tend to happen- likewise, it is difficult to see how a war will unfold untill it is over- who is to say that brittian knew what effect the bombings would have on the course of the war, while they must have known that it would kill many civilians, the objective of war is to cause the enemy to submit, and causing cities to cease to exist in a fire storm probably qualifies as a morale lowering event at the very least __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

10-22-2003, 02:03 AM	#9 (permalink)
Spartak Bang bang Location: New Zealand	Maybe revenge was involved, who knows ? Did V-1/2s destroy military targets ? Maybe the RAF were bombing targets of "strategic interest" (factories etc), and since the guidance of the Lancasters wasn't too flash, the only way to destroy such a target was to drop all the bombs they could on it and hope some would fall on it. Who knows? Nobody. __________________ I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

10-22-2003, 03:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	All the innocents who died deserve to have their stories told. IMO, targeting of civilians is wrong. Also wrong, IMO, is judging historical actions in terms of today's morality and standards. Certainly not all Germans were for Hitler but there sure seemed to be a hell of a lot of them on his side at the time. And not all could be said that they were forced into it as there were plenty of supporters among Germans who weren't even in the Fatherland. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-22-2003, 03:36 AM	#11 (permalink)
homerhop Insane Location: ÉIRE	As in all conflicts there are 2 civilian populations neither of which should be targeted.Sadly the victors get to show the evils that the loosers have done, and the loosers "deserved" everything they got. Already I can see this theading in the same direction __________________ its evolution baby

10-21-2003, 06:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	From the Article: In Dresden, SS workers from a nearby concentration camp were called in to dispose of heaps of bodies. Yeah, the SS workers were pretty good at disposing of heaps of bodies. I'll discuss this more later, I have homework to finish.

10-21-2003, 07:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	I guess I could go on a big discussion with a few people like I did on a subject similar to this over in the weapons section, But I hope that the majority of people can read through the revisionist history and remember the truth of what really happened. Who started the War, Who bombed Britain, etc...

10-21-2003, 07:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
meepa Insane	On a side note, bombing Berlin pissed Hitler off, which made him foolishly redirect his aims at London instead of the RAF. That serves a military purpose!

10-21-2003, 07:27 PM	#6 (permalink)
rodgerd Psycho Location: Wellington, New Zealand	It's certainly worth acknowledging, especially with war crimes like Dresden. It's likewise worth having a discussion around tactics and targetting of civilians. That said, it also ought to be noted that bombing of civilian areas in WW II was begun during the Battle of Britain. While the allies may have been wrong to retaliate in the same way, one form of suffering does not excuse perptrating crimes elsewhere (cf Israel/Palestine).

10-22-2003, 03:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
thejoker130 Insane Location: slippery rock university AKA: The left ass cheek of the world	I remember hearing on TV a few years ago they were interviewing this guy in Zaire when the revolution there was on. he was talking about civilian casulties when he said "When two elephants fight its the grass that gets trampled" Let Mr Friedrich write his book, people should hear all sides of the story. Its sort of like the american war crimes against the vietnameses civies, the ones we're just now hearing about when the vietnam war's been over for 30+ years. like I said the world needs to hear all sides of the story Besides the german civilians really got shafted by the allies and even by their own military. German civilians seeking refuge in the subway system from the allied bombing were flooded out by the ss under Hitlers orders because he felt that germans were losing because they were weak. __________________ WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? ------------------------------------- I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

10-22-2003, 04:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I don't think it can possibly be a bad thing to show how much suffering is caused by war. It's hard to argue that civilians ever "deserve" to be casualties of war - this is the same argument that justified crashing planes into the World Trade Center. Perhaps they support their government's actions, either actively or passively, but it's hard to believe that they could have exerted much influence over the juggernaut that was Hitler's army. Although Mr. Friedrich says there was no military purpose for the bombings in the last months of the war, I wonder if the British had the same perspective at the time. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-22-2003, 04:23 AM	#14 (permalink)
Sledge Pasture Bedtime	It sucks when you're innocent and you die. Hell, it even sucks when you're NOT innocent and you die. lurkette said it better than me. Regardless of which side was "evil" and which was "good," many civilians died, quite probably unnecessarily; I'm glad people are taking the time to mourn them.

10-22-2003, 07:10 PM	#15 (permalink)
SaltPork Everything's better with bacon Location: In your local grocer's freezer.	Let's put things into perspective...The Germans bombed the crap out of London, lots of civilians died. The Brits bombed them back, lots of civilians died. The simple fact of the matter is, it was the 1940's, there was no such thing as precision bombing, all they could do was carpet bombing and hope that a couple of bombs hit their intended targets. I know I'mm oversimplifying, but hopefully you get my point. The Brits simply retaliated against the Germans for what the Germans had done to them. Does it make it right? To the Brits it did, I'm not really one to judge, I wasn't there. Bad things happen when there is a war, sometimes really bad things, but war means killing people, plain and simple; civilians, military, animals, lots of death, especially back then. Look how war has changed, precision bombing for example. Now we can bomb one house in a neighborhood and not do anything but superficial damage to surrounding buildings, couldn't do that in 1940. Do innocent people still die? Absolutely. Do they deserve to? Maybe, maybe not. The bomb could have killed a terrorist, soldier, leader, etc., you never know. But it could have also killed a child, a mother, a father, etc. There is a lot of uncertainty in war. The bottom line is that if we continue to engage each other in armed conflict, innocent people will die, there are no two ways about it. There will be no avoiding it, ever, unless we stop blowing each other up. I can feel more ranting coming, it's purposeful, but I don't know how much more any of you would read of it. __________________ It was like that when I got here....I swear.

10-23-2003, 03:46 AM	#16 (permalink)
Clewd Upright Location: Under the warm California sun	The holocaust is a tragedy not because 6 million Jews died but because 6 million people died simply for being Jewish. In the same respect neither British nor German civilians deserve to die simply because they are British or German. The political beliefs of those civilians or whether or not they belong to the side that started the conflict is meaningless 1. because inevitably some of them are going be truly innocent (opposing Hitler, opposing the war, etc...) 2. because the opposing side is guilty of just as much (supporting the punitive aspects of the treaty of versailles, etc...) and 3. because we realize that even if all those German women and children were fervent supporters of Hitler and the holocaust, killing them will achieve only more hatred and animosity and perpetuate the endless cycle of violence. __________________ LiuGuberlorious

11-16-2003, 04:03 PM	#17 (permalink)
VF19 Banned Location: back to my old location	A bit late, but, this doesnt match up to the attacks the US made upon Japan (the A-Bomb). Lots of civilians there. No war crimes.

11-16-2003, 04:27 PM	#18 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	To condemn showing dead German civilians would be hypocritical considering the widespread display of pictures of the aftermath of the nuclear attack on Japan, and other famous pictures such as the naked girl covered in napalm from Vietnam. If we allow people to censor the images of war, we can too easily forget what it is like and why it should only be a last resort.

11-16-2003, 05:26 PM	#19 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	Go ahead, show the pictures. But the germans elected that fucking demon, and then they want to say it was a war crime to grind his empire into dust? Instead, why don't we simply report the unslanted facts, consider that that was 50 years ago, and lay it to rest already.

11-16-2003, 08:33 PM	#21 (permalink)
analog Banned	Does anyone else find it crude that he's complaining about the loss of innocent life... when that's exactly what the war started over? How can he say, "they killed innocent people in their raids" when the german goverment killed shitloads MORE innocent people for doing nothing other than believing differently than them? Oh, and the raids germany did over the open country of england, ALSO over houses and families, was for what? Were they all military houses? This guy is bullshit, and looking to make a dollar and a name for himself.

11-17-2003, 12:16 PM	#22 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	As far as I know, the Germans first bombed London by mistake, which led to the British bombing Berlin on purpose, which led to a full-on anti-city campaign on both sides. However... The Germans were already well-known for bombing civilian areas, as they did in Spain (during the civil war), Poland, the Netherlands, etc. Now, given that the bombers of that day and age were horribly innacurate, it is only logical that they'd be used like this, especially given the common "total war" philosophies at the time. Anyone was a target, because everyone was part of the war effort. There were no innocent civilians because of this. The civilians killed and maimed one day would not be going back to build tanks and guns the next. Brutal, yes; but in the context of that time, it makes perfect sense. Today, we "know" that civilians are innocent victims of war; back then they "knew" that they were simply enemies, helping to prolong the war. (Note: I'm not defending anyone's attacks on civilians; just trying to put it in it's proper context.)

11-17-2003, 02:13 PM	#23 (permalink)
jujueye alpaca lunch for the trip Location: in my computer	That's not wrong at all. Um...wow, so much to think about here. I believe he has the right to publish the book and the pictures, of course. I think it is far too late for him to point fingers at anybody, but I suppose new books regarding new ideas and stories come out every day, so hey, go for it.