Most heinous British war crime?

[peteblue]

Add Liverpool to your list, sir. Almost half of Liverpool's residential buildings were either damaged or completely destroyed by the Luftwaffe. And over 3,000 Scouse civilians were killed during WWII.

We used to have a chippy.......

 

[Blue 1]

Still reckon rebuilding Coventry is a massive blight on us all. The shame of knowing 'we' had a chance to leave it levelled and in the past yet rebuilt it will hang heavy round our necks for a long time yet.

Heard it described recently as "A tangle of concrete blocks and flyovers that fits together like a ****ish giant's puzzle."

It is a truly grim place.

 

[DownOnTheUpside]

I don't really get this whole idea of war crimes
If you've gotten to the point of war then pretty much nothing is off the table in my view
Cause those civilians you're not allowed to target are growing food, making munitions and breeding recuits for the enemy
If you leave an enemy half beaten its pretty much a guarantee you'll be fighting them again later
Case in point germany ww1 ww2
The middle east today after the gulf war

 

[PhilM]

There is more than a grain of truth in that "lions led by donkeys", though. As an example, my family have been doing some research into one of our ancestors who served in the 16th West Yorkshire Regiment (the "Bradford Pals") and who was wounded at a place called Rossignol Wood in 1917.

The attack he took part in was a complete disaster (226 killed, wounded or missing from two companies of the 16th), thanks largely to a failure to notice well-sited German gun positions that hadn't been evacuated, and because the familiar tactic of advancing over open, muddy ground towards machine guns was adopted. The General commanding the division ordered an inquiry to be held - not because of the waste of life, or the failure of intelligence, but because some men and an NCO who did not appear wounded had been seen surrendering. The Inquiry concluded with a note from the General reminding the men under his command that they would be shot at if they tried to surrender, and if they did manage to successfully surrender then they would be shot after the war ended.

The General visited the front line of his men once in 1917. He was mentioned in dispatches six times.

I'm sorry to hear about your family member and I am not blind to the fact that there are examples of poor leadership from the higher echelons.

Perhaps I should have explained my view more accurately. My view is that people unfairly criticise particular offensives and the leadership.

Not wanting to unnecessarily regurgitate what I've said before in a different thread, I'd have a read of some of the stuff I've mentioned before.

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/the-somme-1-7-16.89466/page-4#post-4633743

The British Army was at a substantial disadvantage from the outset due to the German choice of positioning and being relatively small in size.

Add to that the introduction of Pals battalions, which great for logistical ease, introduced battalions of men lead by inexperienced NCO's et al.

Yet, the British army continue to made advancements in tactics, training and leadership which led to eventual success in late 1916 to 1918.

Unfortunately, over the period of change a strong German defensive model and failures in technology meant that regrettable loss of life occurred.

I'm not saying the leadership was ideal either, but it now receives a level of criticism it very rarely received during or shortly after the war.

In the mainstay they often (not all) showed more than adequate levels of progression and success when you consider the situation they faced.

 

[tsubaki]

Yet, the British army continue to made advancements in tactics, training and leadership which led to eventual success in late 1916 to 1918.

Unfortunately, over the period of change a strong German defensive model and failures in technology meant that regrettable loss of life occurred.

I'm not saying the leadership was ideal either, but it now receives a level of criticism it very rarely received during or shortly after the war.

In the mainstay they often (not all) showed more than adequate levels of progression and success when you consider the situation they faced.

Perhaps - though I think if they get more criticism than they deserve now, they got less than they deserved during and after the war.

There is also an argument to be made that much of the progression and success were seemingly deliberately lost in the inter-war period, especially with regards to the use of tanks.

PS: also just to clear up an error in my earlier post, the unit my relative served in was the 16th Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment.

 

[gianthogweed]

For a tiny island to colonizing most of the planet there must of been the odd discrepancy here and there

 

[PhilM]

There is also an argument to be made that much of the progression and success were seemingly deliberately lost in the inter-war period, especially with regards to the use of tanks.

Not sure whether I agree that it was intentionally deliberate, but you're correct that swathes of our technical and tactical advancements were lost.

It wasn't immediate of course as in the early to mid 20s we were still at the forefront of tank design and doctrine, and the RAF thrived in Iraq.

Our demise only really started to take shape in the late 20s to early 30s when cuts, squabbling and pressure from more rigid ranks pissed it away.

Tanks were too small in number and were primarily light tanks, designed to police empire rather than oppose a foe, and supported the infantry.

Germany on the other hand saw the infantry's role as to support the tanks who'd move on mass and in speed; as we all know it didn't end well.

Additionally, France had some of the best tank designs in the world in 1939 (much heavier than their German foe) but used them in isolation.

Much could be said about the RAF as well and losing their advantage through squabbling, poor procurement and back to outdated tactics.

On paper we and the French should have given the German's a stern fight in 1940, but as you said we'd lost all the progression and sank back.

Same assumptions, same poorly thought out doctrine and the same ol' mistakes. Like in WWI, took a good few years to iron them all back out.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Add Liverpool to your list, sir. Almost half of Liverpool's residential buildings were either damaged or completely destroyed by the Luftwaffe. And over 3,000 Scouse civilians were killed during WWII.

Little known fact is that in 1940, London received the highest tonnage of bombs, BUT, the city which received the second highest tonnage of bombs dropped on it was Liverpool. Yet when TV historians ramble on about the bombings in 1940 they inevitably mention Coventry as a massive example. Not so. After London, LIVERPOOL. Coventry was way behind in terms of bombs dropped, but gets all the publicity because of the cathedral. Also, Coventry gets most of the attention because of the first major use of beam navigation to guide the bombers to the city. And therein lies another quandry for the British Government of the time. We KNEW of this beam navigation, but decided not to protect Coventry with massive anti-aircraft guns, nor a whole slew of fighters to go after the bombers. Why? In order to protect the fact that we knew of Germany's beam navigation, but did not want to give them a sniff of knowing we had cracked it. Let some die, for the betterment of the many...