Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:19 am
War would have carried on regardless of the film. It's not the fighting that is being justified, but the propaganda (and I suppose to some extent, how the war was fought. But I don't think the existence of Victory Through Airpower had one jot of influence on the Allies air attack strategy).Will Barks wrote:I really don't want to defend Nazis (I detest right wing extremists). But growing up in Austria (which was part of the German Reich then) I actually saw the destruction of historic city parts (e.g. in Vienna). The house I live in is a beautiful "Gründerzeit" building from 1899, nearly destroyed during allied bombing. Other similar houses in my neighborhood weren't that fortunate. There was a monastry homing parentless girls not a mile from where I'm living now. They all died under the debris of a bombed medieval tower. And why? Because the allied followed the strategy to bomb civillian areas just to make the people protest against the Nazi regime, what never happend (sadly). Hence, all those innocent people died for nothing!2099net wrote: You know, you may want to read about the bombing the Germans did on Europe, especially Britain and see if that changes your mind. Especially look up the Nazi attitude and intent of their bombing of Coventry - even the code name they gave the operation speaks volumes.
So I hope it's intelligible calling a movie with the intent to incite bombing a piece of shit. War is never justified!
I must say, bombing Austrian civilian areas doesn't sound like a War-winning strategy, and I must admit I was ignorant of this. I knew military targets in the area were bombed, and I think I knew propaganda leaflets were also dropped as part of this, but I never knew civilian areas were targeted for bombs. I does seem counter productive.
As for the bombings in general, I agree that its at best morally grey, and at worse morally wrong. But I said it is "justifiable", just as the film "Victory Through Airpower" is justifiable. I'm not going to pretend everything Britain and the Allies did in the War was done with impunity. I know that ultimately (for example) the city of Dresden was bombed with many times the numbers even Coventry was bombed with before.
But we are talking about a War - and as part of War both the bombing and the creation of propaganda films supporting bombing is justifiable. As I said, my Grandmother suffered from (limited) bombings first hand - she often had to go to her air-raid shelter. And when my Grandfather worked at night at the Rolls Royce factory my Grandmother never knew if the siren was indicating the factory and my grandfather was bombed and he would be injured or killed. Despite having to live through that - night after night (even on nights where there was no siren, she still must have been thinking about it) - she still cried when I spoke to her about the war and she talked about Britain bombing Germany (and as you point out, probably other countries). Sadly, my Grandfather died from a heart condition before I was born so I could never talk to that Grandfather about the war.
But now I think about it, I wonder if my grandmother felt more guilt than some regarding the bombings because her husband made the engines that powered the planes?
That's why the propaganda film was "justified" - it wasn't really made for the majority of the civilian population (I would guess) but made to encourage those working on the planes and the munitions. They needed moral boosts and needed to be told what they were doing was "right".
I don't really see how a discussion on Wartime Propaganda films can exist if people keep dancing around this subject - its all very well saying the films are politically incorrect, jingoistic or whatever. But remember, War is hell. I would imagine every single person in the US was affected by the war - be it fighting, working in factories, working on farms or even just having other people they know or love put in danger. They needed something to help them believe all their sacrifices were worthwhile and boost moral. The simple answer is all the Disney propaganda films were justified. It doesn't make them right, but it means their purpose and existence is totally understandable.
I still think - and I know I will be attacked for this - I still think it was "justifiable". The Allies wanted a quick end to the war. Don't forget the UK was living on rations - their weekly food allowance wouldn't last most modern people a day in this day and age!, their children were still evacuated to the country, and while the worst of the Nazi bombings were over in 1942, bombings still continued into 1944. So why would they want to carry on their suffering for any moment longer than was necessary.Goliath wrote:The only thing I object to, is the bombing of civilian targets that took place after 1943 (thus after Disney's film came out), because at that point, the nazi's were already losing the war and there was no way they would fight their way back, and the 'experts' knew it.
Of course, the exact same reasoning as I quoted from your post could also be applied to both nuclear bombings of Japan (and if not, could definitely be applied to the second). Considering the UK was being attacked harder and longer than the US, and most definitely suffered more, which action is more "justifiable"? The atomic bomb is credited with ending the War in the East, but maybe the prolonged Allied bombings ended the War in the West?
As an aside, I find the few people here who talk about Education for Death interesting. It's been a while since I've seen it to be honest, but so far, everyone here seems to accept what it says as 100% truth. I'm not so sure. It's a propaganda film no matter which side made it (or indeed which studio made it). I'm sure it takes several liberties with what it presents as the truth - even if all are based on reality.
So does that mean the propaganda is still working? Would anyone like to go through it point-by-point and analyse how true it really is?