Added: 4 years ago
From: metalmelvin
Views: 11,840
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (371)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @TheMrPanGloss

    Gruesome harvest published by Liberty Bell publications. An extreme right wing avidly anti Semitic company. The company that published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. This publication is the holy grail of all Conspiracy theorists. So this where you get your ideas from Panloss. They also publish the anti Semitic writings of Henry Ford

  • @LordGodofMercy You have lied so much here, LordGodOfMercy, that I don't trust your argument.

    You can say anything. You perhaps appear to know something but you don't back up your claims.

    You may say only a part of the truth.

    KEELING WELCOMES THE ERADICATION OF NAZISM IN THE BOOK.

    THUS AUTHOR'S INTENTION IS NOT TO PROMOTE NAZISM.

    Do you want me to tell you where you can put your stuff of publishers? I don't care because that comment is PREDATORY, like in witch hunt.

  • "...grazed Neo Nazi Holocaust denier."

    I AM NOT A NEO NAZI, NOR A HOLOCAUST DENIER,

    REPORT AND FLAG LORDGODMERCY FOR YOUR RIGHTS ON YOUTUBE

    REPORT ABUSE AND SMEARING

    REPORT EFFORTS OF SPOILING PEOPLE'S REPUTATION

    REPORT LORD GOD OF MERCY AND HIS ALIASES FOR THE FREEDOM ON YOUTUBE

  • @TheMrPangloss You've shown your true colours on recommending Gruesome Harvest. Liberty Bell publications; The rabid anti Semitic company that promotes the anti Semitic views of Henry Ford ! No less! And you claim not to be a Nazi apologist.

    You ain't even foolin' the crows on this one!

  • @TheMrPangloss "I AM NOT A NEO NAZI, NOR A HOLOCAUST DENIER,"

    I am not claiming you Neo Nazi or a Holocaust denier. But you are a Nazi apologist!

  • @TheMrPangloss

    So who is this Ralph Franklin Keeling? His book Gruesome harvest has no Biog of him.

    So it could be anyone really. The forward was written by Austin Joseph App. The infamous Neo Nazi and Holocaust denier. Personally I would mistrust a book written by an anonymous author and recommended by a crazed Neo Nazi Holocaust denier.

  • @LordGodofMercy You have been proved to be:

    (1) A liar;

    (2) manipulator;

    (3) utra nationalist;

    (4) a person who manufactures false data to smear;

    (5) lacking compassion of Humans if they are not from your little Island.

    I mainly respond to you because you call me a Nazi Apologist, trying to persuade other posters that way.

    I don't see any worth in you. You are a worthless thing. People like you are responsible of the evil in the world regardless nationality or ethnicity.

  • @LordGodofMercy "The forward was written by Austin Joseph App."

    BUT THE BOOK ITSELF IS WRITTEN BY AN AMERICAN, AND PUBLISHED IN CHICAGO 1947. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NAZISM.

  • @TheMrPangloss "BUT THE BOOK ITSELF IS WRITTEN BY AN AMERICAN, AND PUBLISHED IN CHICAGO 1947" How do know he is an American. There is no information about the Author. This book is published by extreme Anti Semites.

    And promoted by you!!

  • @LordGodofMercy "How do know he is an American. There is no information about the Author. This book is published by extreme Anti Semites."

    THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 2004 BY THE ANTISEMITES. I DON'T HAVE THAT VERSION AND MY VERSION DOESN'T HAVE THAT NOTORIOUS FOREWORD.

    IT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY: INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN ECONOMICS 127 N. Dearborn Street Chicago 1947

  • @LordGodofMercy "And promoted by you!!"

    IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY ANTISEMITES, ONLY IN 2004.

    THE INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR IS NOT TO BE ANTISEMITIC OR PRO-NAZI

    YOU ARE A PREDATORY "INQUISITOR" HERE ON YOUTUBE.

    I HAVE NOT SUPPORTED ANTISEMITISM OR NAZISM HERE ON YOUTUBE

  • @TheMrPangloss "I HAVE NOT SUPPORTED ANTISEMITISM OR NAZISM HERE ON YOUTUBE" You are recommending books published by blatently Anti Semitic publishing companies.

  • @LordGodofMercy "The forward was written by Austin Joseph App."

    AND KEELING CLEARLY ADVOCATES THE ERADICATION OF NAZISM IN THE BOOK.

    THAT IS NOT A PRO-NAZI BOOK.

    YOU ARE AGAIN MANIPULATING AND FALSIFYING.

  • @TheMrPangloss 'For YOUR TRUE AGENDA is to make people ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL BULL and TO STOP THINKING.'

    You manipulate conspiracy authors, quote as fact books written by authors that cannot be traced, published & forwarded by the extreme right wing.

    You ignore & manipulate historical events. You undermine anyone that proves you to be inaccurate by accusing them of having ‘Clone’ accounts.These have included WW2 Allied veterans and Academics in relevant subjects to these channels

  • @LordGodofMercy "You undermine anyone that proves you to be inaccurate."

    You mean, your clones? When have they really proven anything.

    And you have the nerve to deny that you are not behind them. LOL

    Hate speech is and smearing are the only things you have succeeded in creating here.

  • @LordGodofMercy And you talk about the Veterans.

    Do you realize that if you appeal to the Veterans, that means that you have to RESPECT ALL VETERANS ALIKE.

    But I know you too well. You are not capable of that.

    All you produce here is hate speech and eulogies of the RAF Bomber Command, yelling "THANK YOU SIR ARTHUR HARRIS".

  • @TheMrPanGloss

    This smear campaign is, as the Prof of C20th Political Economics put it ' The comments are that of an immature undergraduate suffering from Undergraduates disease' when you accused him of being a 'Clone'. Is this smear campaign connected with the fact that you have been exposed as manipulating the works of conspiracy theorist authors to fit your own anti Allied agenda?

  • @LordGodofMercy Don't try to be a fuckin smartass without brain. You are behind at least most of those fabricated accounts.

    You have violated the Youtube community rules by:

    (1) Harassing people by fabricated allegations and false data of "Nazi Apologism" whenever the views haven't matched with yours;

    (2) you have abused ethnic groups and nationalities such as the Finnish and German;

    (3) You have produced aliases or "clones" for so-called "Sybil attacks" (google the meaning)

  • @TheMrPangloss I am convinced these 'Clones' are your work. You have set up accounts to smoke screen the fact that I and other users are proving your comments and theories to be based on lies and deliberate manipulation of facts.

    No Pasaran!

  • @LordGodofMercy "I am convinced these 'Clones' are your work."

    Nice try, moron.

    You created them, LORD SNIVELTON, because you felt so ANGRY so HURT. The Little ENGLISH Imperialist in you was SOBBING IN RAGE.

    Then you decided to try to make a character assassination, WHICH FAILED.

    You have those ca. 100 accounts which you can operate, and I have only one. And yet, YOU FAIL PITIFULLY.

    And ALL your impersonating usernames were BANNED by Youtube Admins.

  • @TheMrPangloss As the Prof in C20th Political economics pointed out. Your comments are that of an 'immature undergraduate suffering from undergraduate’s disease'. You have accused every YT user that points out that your comments are manipulative and deceitful as being a clone. This has included Allied war veterans and Academics.

    So I am treating your 'Clone' smear campaign with contempt as I do your anti Allied, Nazi apologist’s agenda.

  • @LordGodofMercy "No Pasaran!"

    And there's nothing equally pitiable that a person TOTALLY DEVOID OF PRINCIPLES AND LACKING ALL MORAL FIBRE, uses an anti-racist slogan "no pasaran". LOLOLOLOL

    YOU are the biggest NAZI, RACIST and SCUMBAG on these channels.

  • TheMrPangloss NEO NAZI SHIT STAIN

  • @TheMrPangloss Anyway back to the point you are tying to avoid. There is no evidence that 10 million Germans were killed by the Allies after WW2 had ended,

    The books you quote are derided by Academics, written by Authors that cannot be traced and have forwards written by Neo Nazi Holocaust deniers. Weak stuff. Not to be taken too seriously

  • @LordGodofMercy "The books you quote are derided by Academics, written by Authors that cannot be traced and have forwards written by Neo Nazi Holocaust deniers. Weak stuff. Not to be taken too seriously..."

    I think you should be put into jail because you deny the murder of millions of people.

  • @TheMrPangloss "I think you should be put into jail because you deny the murder of millions of people."

    From someone that claims Obama is a partner in crime with George Bush for Orchestrating the 9/11 attacks I would have a strong case to claim the prosecution is deluded and not in full control of their faculties. There is no evidence that 10 million Germans were killed by the Allies after WW2.

    Your accusation is based on highly unreliable sources.

  • @LordGodofMercy "The books you quote are derided by Academics, written by Authors that cannot be traced and have forwards written by Neo Nazi Holocaust deniers. Weak stuff. Not to be taken too seriously..."

    This is way too light stuff about FOUR books. The authors are no Neo Nazis or like but respectable Historians.

    The rubbishing of a book in this context as one "liked by Neo Nazis" is an old trick.

  • @MrPanGloss How Prof Gunter Bischof describes Bacque’s work Misuses documents Misreads documents Ignores contrary evidence Employs a statistical methodology that is hopelessly compromised Made no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in relation to the broader situation Made no attempt to perform any comparative context Puts words into the mouths of the subjects of his oral history Ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively dealt with his central accusation
  • @LordGodofMercy "How Prof Gunter Bischof describes Bacque’s work Misuses documents Misreads documents Ignores contrary evidence Employs a statistical methodology.."

    Bacque's "work"? Which of the two? "Other Losses" or "Crimes and Mercies"?

    Sorry, but you even quote in a dishonest manner. "Crimes and Mercies" was the later book and received well, and even the controversial "Other losses" had MERITS even though the calculations were criticized. ...

  • @TheMrPangloss Bacques work, That means his historical attempts. He is a Novelist so writing stories is his forte.

  • @LordGodofMercy contd. ...

    And even in the case of "Other Losses", the first and the controversial one, his most vehement critic acknowledged and admitted "A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL DISCOVERY" in the work.

    It is YOU here who is selective, my little Lord.

  • @TheMrPangloss In the world of Conspiracy. I dare say he is top Dollar, In the Acedemic world he is treated with comtempt.

  • @TheMrPangloss So you quote Ralph Franklin Keeling. With a forward written by a Neo Nazi holocaust denier. Oh dear! Shot yourself in the foot with that one!!

  • @LordGodofMercy "Neo Nazi holocaust denier..."

    In Turkey you are safe if you deny the Armenian Holocaust. But if you point out that the Armenian Holocaust happened, you will go to jail as "anti-Turkish".

    In Germany and Austria you go to jail if you deny the Holocaust, in Turkey it is the opposte with the Armenian H.

    Tell me, LordGodOfMercy. Where is the origin of all this illogical way of thinking. Shouldn't we put the Turkish govt. into jail? Seriously!!!

  • @TheMrPangloss The book you quote from is applauded by Neo Nazi holocaust deniers. The Forward was written by a Neo Nazi, The Book is written by a person that no one has heard of and cannot be traced, He lives in Boston apparently. Not to be taken seriously by anyone but those grasping at straws. That is you.

  • @LordGodofMercy "The book you quote from is applauded by Neo Nazi holocaust deniers. "

    ... because you say so? Firstly, can you prove it. And secondly, what is the relevance of your claim? It has not been written by a Neo Nazi.

    The Forward was written by a Neo Nazi,..." Really? Prove it. And what is the relevance?

    What about Frederick Taylor's "Dresden".

    It has been written by an Oxford Don as a commission against Joerg Friedrich's "Der Brandt".

    It is POLITICAL garbage.

  • @TheMrPangloss Besides, you did not reply my question about the Armenian Holocaust. The government of Turkey denies it. What shall we do about it?

    My suggestion would be don't let 'em join the EEC until they recognise the Armenian Holocaust.

  • @LordGodofMercy

    Then the Dresden Denial, the denials of the mass rapes, the denial of Katyn? Shouldn't those be denied as well?

    What about Stalin's purges and Gulag? Should Stalinists who deny them be put into jail as well, like the Holocaust deniers?

  • @TheMrPangloss So Bacques work is derided by the Academic world, Keeling's (whoever he is?) work is condoned by Neo Nazis. Does not convince me!!

  • @TheMrPangloss Yes! The Armenian Holocaust should not be denied!! No one is trying to blame the Armenian holocaust on anyone but the Turks, Unlike some here that lie and manipulate facts to put the responsibilty of the holocaust onto the UK & US

  • TheMrPangloss is a clone of GRIMAWORMTONGUE the Neo Nazi Brown Stain

  • TheMrPangloss NEO NAZI SHIT STAIN

  • Pangloss The Neo Nazi Shit Stain

  • The Finnish War Crimes talk about that Nazi Boy Talk about the Jews Handed over to the Gestapo by Finnish State Police you Nazi Apologist Shit Stain

  • @NaziBoyPangloss "...you Nazi Apologist Shit Stain""

    I AM NOT A PRO-NAZI, NOR AM I ANTISEMITIC

    BAN THE ABUSER

    BAN THE SMEARER

    BAN LORDGODOFMERCY WHO HAS HISTORY OF MULTIPLE SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF THE YOUTUBE COMMUNITY RULES

    BAN THE CRIMINAL

    BAN HIM FOR THE FREEDOM OF YOUTUBE

  • @TheMrPangloss LIAR

  • Pangloss Neo Nazi Shit Stain on YT

  • Pangloss Why did you call me JEWISH VERMIN ? you Nazi Bastard

  • Pangloss Why do you post on twitter JUDEN DEVILS CHILDREN

  • Why discuss this with me? I wasn't alive at the time, all I know is here in Britain we don't speak German, so as far as I'm concerned it all worked out in our favour. I suggest you take the matter up with the illuminati, allthough I doubt you'll get very far with that line of enquiry. You and I are "But pawns in the game of life" don't you have a life to be getting on with ? I have.

  • @KevinJKtheman

    Thank you that you at least admit that you haven't thought it over.

    I don't speak German either.

    I have been educated that people are equal regardless race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

    I agree that the Nazis were criminals. But seeing my educational standard, I cannot accept the claim that Germans are "evil" as a nation.

    Somebody must be lying, for this claim is a kind of "apriori" postulate in 20th century histories.

  • @TheMrPangloss You're dragging your coat.

  • @KevinJKtheman "Why discuss this with me? I wasn't alive at the time..."

    Because the demonization is going on in a similar manner. Which nation will be the next "collectively guilty" one?

  • Bomber crews were true warriors.

  • @crackerbash63 "Bomber crews were true warriors.

    Really?

    Do you call those RAF pilots "true warriors' who bombed sleeping women, children and seniors night time?

    It was slaughter of civilians by gasoline jelly and white phosphorus - a war crime. And ALL cultural heritage with no strategic value whatsoever burned too.

    The USAAC bombed some truly strategic targets like oil supplies and railways. That was some true warrior job.

  • Comment removed

  • @TheMrPangloss

    You are entitled to your opinion but I am afraid it is fairly one dimensional. I suggest you spend a bit more time researching the bomber offensive against Germany to get a more complete picture of what the bomber crews went through on a nightly basis and what the offensive ultimately achieved. I am sure once you learn a little more you will find out that they were true warriors in every sense and that there was a substantial amount of strategic bombing as well.

  • @crackerbash63 "I suggest you spend a bit more time researching the bomber offensive against Germany to get a more complete picture of what the bomber crews went through on a nightly basis..."

    The operations were planned at High Wycombe and their outline followed the so-called "dehousing paper", a Cabinet Paper from 1942. What the aircrew experienced was another thing.

  • @crackerbash63 "I am sure once you learn a little more you will find out that they were true warriors in every sense..."

    If the enemy ever planned offensives against civilian population in general, do we regard those who implemented them or took part in them, "true warriors"? Of course not.

    The goal of the "dehousing paper" was to kill as many civs on the ground as possible. Churchill wanted to wash his hands (the Dresden memo) when the public outrage threatened his career.

  • @TheMrPangloss No. The "Dehousing" strategy was formulated AFTER the Coventry raid where 514 people were killed and 60,000 were left homeless, creating an unparalleled strain on infrastructure.

    Dehousing was later implemented as "Area Bombing", Given what had happened to places like London and Coventry, the British public didn't care that innocent Germans were dying. They were getting a bit of their own back, What would you expect them to think?

  • @Camerameister1 "They were getting a bit of their own back, What would you expect them to think?"

    This is also propaganda. W.M. Spaight (Secretary of Air Ministry) admits in his "Bombing Vindicated" (London 1944) that "it was we who started bombing cities". He also boasts how they, since the did not ratify the League of Nations conventions had free hands of bombing civilians. He also speaks about "distortion of the truth" which "worked well".

    His boastful booklet tells it all.

  • @TheMrPangloss No, you've missed the point. Maybe I didn't make it well enough.

    I'm not trying to justify it from a modern perspective. I'm looking at it from the point of view of the British public at the time, who felt they were losing the war. They had suffered for no other reason that they lived there and they had no way of really knowing what was going on in Germany. I doubt if any of them believed the concept of in "an honourable German" at the time.

  • @TheMrPangloss is a Neo Nazi He lies and lies on YT Check him out on TWITTER He is a filthy Nazi Apologist He mocks the Holocaust and posts THE JEWS ARE THE DEVILS CHILDREN He denies Finnish war crimes Like the Finnish state police handing Jews over to the Gestapo to be murdered 06/11/1942 He is a Greasy Arse Wipe

  • @Camerameister1 "Dehousing was later implemented as "Area Bombing", Given what had happened to places like London and Coventry, ..."

    Germany was bombed by the RAF months before Coventry and Blitz.

    I already mentioned V.M.Spaight's "Bombing Vindicated" where he states happily "it was we who started bumbing cities" and "it was a splendid decision".

    As to the method of white phosphorus, the RAF B. C. used it already in Iraq 1920 on which Harris wrote a memo in 1924.

  • @TheMrPangloss Pasting & posting old comments again. Here we go again around & around, You don't debate you jusy bombarst people with the same old unchanged rhetoric,

    Austin J. App. Google him! You & he like the same authors.

  • @Camerameister1 "Dehousing was later implemented as "Area Bombing", "

    Yes, terms "strategic", "area" and "saturation" bombing were euphemist. Their purpose was to mislead public opinion and the MPs. Harris blurted out in his interviews that "hitting industry is a bonus" which reveals the true target of bombing - the civ. pop.

    Besides, the 1940 air war directive was already targeting civilians with "the danger of imminent sudden death" caused to civ. pop. ...

  • @Camerameister1 "Dehousing was later implemented as "Area Bombing", ..."

    Actually nothing much changed compared to the 1940 air war directive. The "dehousing paper" was just an attorney for continuing the same with more emphasized wholesale slaughter of German, Italian and French civilian population.

  • @TheMrPangloss You're reading way too much into it and your interpretation does not take into account the many levels of organisation the policy went through. You're reading delibate acts where there was simple incompetence or lack of effective technology. Germany had X-Gerat and the Knickebein long before the RAF had H2S.

    Since on at least one occasion, the RAF missed its target by over 100 miles, it's drawing a pretty long bow to insist that it was always deliberate slaughter of civilians.

  • @Camerameister1 "Since on at least one occasion, the RAF missed its target by over 100 miles, it's drawing a pretty long bow to insist that it was always deliberate slaughter of civilians."

    I guess that you read "Bombing Vindicated" by V.M. Spaight. Its red line is that how the U.K. succeeded in cheating with propaganda and with not ratifying the League of the Nations on Air War. It is a boastful book. Then also the air war directives and how certain MPs were against the policy.

  • @TheMrPangloss I know of no V.M. Spaight. I know of a J.M. Spaight who wrote a limited defence of the RAF's airpower policy called "Bombing Vindicated". Spaight was a prolific writer on airpower issues between the wars so don't think you can just randomly quote him without understanding him. He went through the whole era of Douhet et al and understood the strategy. It is true that he criticised area bombing but he did so in a limited way and not the way you are trying to present.

  • @Camerameister1 Spaight was also tried to establish a sort of statute of limitations on aerial bombing but that is not how you have chosen to present it. He does not say that it should be stopped because civilians were being killed, he says that targets should be prioritised on the grounds of military potential, something which actually fits the League of Nations declarations.

    Your conclusions that Spaight was condemning the policy are wrong and you are misquoting him.

  • @Camerameister1 "Your conclusions that Spaight was condemning the policy are wrong and you are misquoting him."

    I am not misquoting him.

  • @TheMrPangloss Actually, you are. You have been cherry picking quotes and missed a lot of what he said.

    Spaight's approach was to attempt to apply a statute of limitations - a factor which you missed - so as to judge the strategic importance of any given city. Harris just made a list of big cities and crossed each one off as it was bombed. That was never Spaight's approach.

  • @Camerameister1 "I know of no V.M. Spaight. I know of a J.M. Spaight who wrote a limited defence of the RAF's airpower policy called "Bombing Vindicated"."

    Indeed, I did not remember the initials correctly. But it doesn't change the matter. Of course he defends the wholesale slaughter of civilians which did not go through without protest. And as I said, the book is boastful, and awful eulogy of shock and awe.

  • @TheMrPangloss "Of course he defends the wholesale slaughter of civilians which did not go through without protest."

    Then you know little of Spaight and are cherry picking quotes.

  • @Camerameister1 "Then you know little of Spaight and are cherry picking quotes."

    Want me to quote more?

    Well, you haven't read Spaight yourself. You just want to deviate the conversation from the umpleasant essence to endless pondering of details.

  • @TheMrPangloss "Well, you haven't read Spaight yourself."

    Actually, I have.

    If you knew what you were talking about, particularly in terms of the pre-war bombing philosophy, you'd know that.

  • @TheMrPangloss "Well, you haven't read Spaight yourself."

    You mean unpleasant details like a clear understanding, devoid of your peculiar political agenda? You have blamed NOBODY but the British. Your arguments consist of "They did it first..." as though that is some sort of justification for your point. You made one valid point - the one about the RAF bombing Kurdish civilians in thew 1920s. After that you got sidetracked by you ego.

    And you still have not answered my question.

  • @Camerameister1 "You have blamed NOBODY but the British."

    I have.

    I don't think highly of the Nazis either, nor of the Soviet.

    But I think that ww1 and ww2 was an entity, and effort OF THE ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT, against a market rival, Germany.

    And this has happened before. For example the U.S. civil war was a similar war. Britain supported the confederation there.

  • @Camerameister1 "...you can just randomly quote him without understanding him. "

    I understood him perfectly. He basically tells how clever the British were and how stupid the enemy was, and how the British had in his opinion totally free hands to bomb cities thanks to their cunning. Awful militaristic booklet.

  • @TheMrPangloss "He basically tells how clever the British were and how stupid the enemy was, and how the British had in his opinion totally free hands to bomb cities thanks to their cunning."

    A particularly skewed point of view considering it was written in 1944! You are guilty of 20/20 hindsight. Since Spaight was not really intended for mass consumption, do you think it might be possible that he was dealing with information not accessible to the British public?

  • @Camerameister1 "Since Spaight was not really intended for mass consumption, do you think it might be possible that he was dealing with information not accessible to the British public?"

    Yes, he was. And that was what truly happened. The RAF did one thing, then it was packed into an odourless and tasteless package and sold to the MPs.

    Spaights says that he doubted that "the distortion of the truth" would work, but he adds that it worked very well. That means, the whitewash.

  • @TheMrPangloss "Spaights says that he doubted that "the distortion of the truth" would work, but he adds that it worked very well. That means, the whitewash."

    Another particularly skewed interpretation.

  • @Camerameister1 "Another particularly skewed interpretation."

    It is not interpreation. It reads there.

    Again, want me to quote?

  • @TheMrPangloss It's easy to quote things like this when you miss the essential point of this: IT WAS 1944!!!

    You have consistently failed to answer the point about viewing this in hindsight. You have also failed to address Spaight's intention to adopt a more analytical approach.

    Ask away you ignoramus. You are trying to make "the facts" fit your own hindsight and you are cluttering up my inbox. Kindly take your ignorance and fuck off.

  • @Camerameister1 "Spaight's intention to adopt a more analytical approach."

    Spaight gives his full support to the RAF night bombings.

  • @Camerameister1 "You have consistently failed to answer the point about viewing this in hindsight...."

    I have replied this several times.

    "Kindly take your ignorance and fuck off."

    Oh, an insult. Sign of weakness.

  • @TheMrPangloss I just can't stand paranoid conspiracy theorists who, when faced with evidence to the contrary, continually fail to see anything from anyone else's point of view.

    It's NOT me who said you're a Holocaust denier. It WAS me who conceded to your point about the RAF bombing Kurds (because I already knew it to be true).

    So remember who you're dealing with.

    You'll never understand history until you stop using hindsight as your primary tool.

    NOW you can fuck off.

  • @Camerameister1 "I just can't stand paranoid conspiracy theorists who, when faced with evidence to the contrary, continually fail to see anything from anyone else's point of view."

    A "paranoid conspiracy theorist"?

    I have only your word of that. Why should I take it seriously. You have adopted LodGodOfMercy's rhetorics here, clearly.

    "It's NOT me who said you're a Holocaust denier.."

    Thank you.

  • @TheMrPangloss "You have adopted LodGodOfMercy's rhetorics here, clearly."

    Really?

    After giving you some credit - perhaps more than you deserve - you come up with that?

    Thanks a fucking lot.

    Done with you.

  • @Camerameister1 "Thanks a fucking lot."

    What do you want?

  • @Camerameister1 "After giving you some credit - perhaps more than you deserve - you come up with that?"

    I did not give you credit. I know that.

    I have seen so many patriotic eulogies of this RAF nightbombing campaign, with imaginative mainly racist excuses that the civilians "deserved it" or subtle excuses to shed all responsibility from those who sanctioned and implemented the campaign.

    My style is that the Emperor really has no clothes. That's it.

  • @TheMrPangloss You fucking Nazi apologist cunt.

  • @Camerameister1 "It WAS me who conceded to your point about the RAF bombing Kurds (because I already knew it to be true)."

    In my opinion the RAF nightbombing policy is a continuation of what happened in Mesopotamia in the 1920s. Hugh "Boom" Trenchards "attrition war from the air" was the RAF Bomber Command practiced in the British Colonies. During the war, Churchill's government tried to appease the greater public with lies the purpose of which was to conceal the policy.

  • @Camerameister1 Then there's ofcourse Vera Brittain's booklets "Massacre by Bombing ". It lists all possible excuses how there was "no other chance" than to kill German civilians. It is against the RAF dehousing policy already during the war, and it has not lost any of its actuality.

  • @TheMrPangloss Vera Brittain's point of view was hardly typical of the British public. That is not to deride what she said. You seem to be trying to avoid the point I'm trying to make here: that the view of the British people of the time was that Germany deserved all she got and more.

    That is not the view today but then it was 70 years ago.

    Life always looks different with 20/20 hindsight.

  • @Camerameister1 "That is not the view today but then it was 70 years ago. Life always looks different with 20/20 hindsight."

    Really? And it didn't happen again?

    It did happen in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistam.

    The RAF nightbombing is perhaps the most political and determined effort of killing a part of a nation from the air.

  • @TheMrPangloss You really are talking through your arse.

    You have taken my comment that it was the view of the British public at the time and twisted it into this fucked up logic, applying it to situations which could not be referred to by Spaight or the British public of the time.

    Do you think it's possible you could take a step back from your pre-conceived ideas and look at it in the context of the time? That's the only thing that matters and the only way it can be judged.

  • @Camerameister1 "Do you think it's possible you could take a step back from your pre-conceived ideas and look at it in the context of the time? "

    I have. I mentioned the MPs who protested against the RAF bombing policy, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME. And I also mentioned Vera Brittain's "Massacre by Bombing" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME.

    These persons LIVED IN U.K. during the war and experienced the time.

  • @Camerameister1 "Since on at least one occasion, the RAF missed its target by over 100 miles,..."

    And yet the pathfinders and bombers followed the "oboe" finding the target areas with appalling effectivity and accuracy. A target area was in most cases a Mediaeval city centre Cathedral or Minster spires and the town hall, with no military significance whatsoever, but with good value for propaganda for it burned bright like a crematorium with a hurricane of fire.

  • @TheMrPangloss So what would be the purpose of the V1 and V2?

    It sure wasn't pin point attack.

  • @Camerameister1 Thus they could have as well marked an industrial area by pathfinders, oboe and "christmas trees".

    That it had to be a city centre, with the cultural landmarks reveals that Churchill's government in this vein practiced DOUBLE TALK. They told that the target area was "industrial" when in reality it was the area which burned brightest and had the largest density of civilian population.

  • @Camerameister1 "...the British public didn't care that innocent Germans were dying"

    Actually many did, even in Britain.

    Why else did Churchill's government have to lie to the MPs in both house of lords and house of commons?

    And why was it always pointed out that the targets were "industrial" while the directives told the opposite? Because that's how people were soothed.

    Certain MPs questioned the bombings constantly but the govt. soothed them with lies.

  • @TheMrPangloss "Actually many did, even in Britain."

    Actually, what evidence do you have for this? Are we talking about a majority? Probably not.

    "And why was it always pointed out that the targets were "industrial" while the directives told the opposite?"

    This is simply not true. In the early days of bombing (of Germany), only about 3% of bombs fell within 5 miles of the target. Even in daylight the results were unreliable. At night, much of the ordinace fell on farmland.

  • @TheMrPangloss All bomber crews faced stiff opposition from whatever enemy forces could be mustered, whether it was Fighter Command vs the Luftwaffe over England in 1940 or Bomber Command or Bomber Command vs the Nachtjagd over Germany later on. The casualty rates for RAF bomber crews was 55% so your argument that the target or even collateral damage diminishes their bravery holds no water.

  • Its easy for us to moralise about the Bombing campaign 75 years on, but we were not there. The bombing of German civillians was a terrible thing, but lets not forget, it was the Germans who began the bombing of civillians in the first place. I can understand the German civillians blaming Bomber Harris and his Bomber command, but really it is their own leaders who were ultimately to blame for ALL! the terrible things that happened, to all the nations involved in the war.

  • @KevinJKtheman "Its easy for us to moralise about the Bombing campaign 75 years on, but we were not there. "

    The "shock and awe" continued after ww2 and is still living strong. My duty is to condemn it as criminal.

  • @KevinJKtheman "I can understand the German civillians blaming Bomber Harris and his Bomber command, but really it is their own leaders who were ultimately to blame for ALL! "

    No, the "dehousing paper" was lobbied by Churchill in the War Cabinet in 1942 and it wen through NOT WITHOUT PROTEST.

    It was then IMPLEMENTED by the RAF Bomber Command with operations planned at High Wycombe.

    Thus the Churchillian government is FULLY RESPONSIBLE OF THE CARNAGE OF CIVILIANS.