Wolfram von Richthofen

[Tim West]

Agreed, I don't think just walking up and shooting Hitler was as simple as that. Most everyone with in his inner circle had a lot to lose upon his demise and by the time they started to feel guilty...the damage was already done.

[FOKKERJ]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

At the moment I'm reading Antony's impressive book on the Spanish civil war, The Battle for Spain. I came across this comment on Wolfram von Richthofen. 'Richthofen, a cousin of the famous Red baron air ace, was a hard, arrogant man, disliked by German and Spanish officers alike. He was to become infamous as the destroyer of many towns and cities: Durango and Guernica in Spain, then Rotterdam, Belgrade, Canea and Heraklion in Crete, followed by many cities in the Soviet Union, most notably of all, Stalingrad, where 40,000 civilians were killed.'
It made me wonder what Manfred, if he had lived, would have thought of his cousin.

WHAT IF????

What If women had Schnauser faces?

What If Superman had been born and raised into Nazi germany?

All very entertaing questions I'm sure.

I believe that I am able to answer atleast one:

He would be known as "ÜBERMANN" and we would all be speaking Deutsche!

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by FOKKERJ

WHAT IF????

What If women had Schnauser faces?

What If Superman had been born and raised into Nazi germany?

All very entertaing questions I'm sure.

I believe that I am able to answer atleast one:

He would be known as "ÜBERMANN" and we would all be speaking Deutsche!

Not so fast!

....meanwhile the allies, bored with schnauzer girls, develop a means to harness the power of Kryptonite and lay waste to the Ubertropolis.

What the allies dont know is across the sea, as a result of failed atomic tests, the Japanese have a new super weapon of their own. They call "him" Gojira......GODZILLA!!!!

Whoa no!

[alex_revell]

Romani
At your suggestion, I've read the reviews on Amazon. It seems only two were dismissive of Beevor's book, and that mildly. From what I've read so far I can't really agree that he is biased to the Republican side. What must always be remembered, and taken into account, when reading reviews/critique of books, is the possible bias of the reviewer, mild as it might possibly be. Not strong enough perhaps to give a book a bad review, but it must effect his objective judgement to a certain degree. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.

[josquin]

Romani downplays the significance of the Luftwaffe attacks on
civilian targets. I find him unconvincing. In the time prior to the
Rotterdam bombing, the British and French had agreed not to bomb
civilian targets. Not only did the Germans choose to do otherwise
but their record on the matter is straightforward and unambiguous
since the Spanish Civil War. I believe that Hugo Sperrle and Wolfram
von Richthofen knew what they were doing at Guernica and I cannot
agree that the degree of damage was unintended. Likewise for
Rotterdam--far from a "mistake," I believe Lackner and his superiors
knew perfectly well what they were doing. As an additional
indication that The Luftwaffe intended to inflict severe damage on
Rotterdam, the Luftwaffe expressly disregarded Gen. Schmidt's (the
O.C. of German ground forces in the Netherlands) request for
precision bombing by JU87s and, instead, chose carpet bombing
with HEINKEL 111s. Such a choice is strange, indeed, for a
military force not planning to exact a toll on its enemies--and part
of the rationale for the bombing, after all, was to break the
Dutch will to resist. I second Alex Revell with respect to Beevor's
book; it is not as bad as you portrayed. Not as good as Hugh
Thomas, to be sure, but more credible than you suggested.

regards

josquin

[Tim West]

In the end it's pretty clear everyone bombed civilian targets.

[crankcase]

Originally Posted by Tim West

In the end it's pretty clear everyone bombed civilian targets.

Indeed! The Russkies are quick to point out that Dresden was the result of Anglo-American terror bombing.
marc

[Romani]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

Romani
At your suggestion, I've read the reviews on Amazon. It seems only two were dismissive of Beevor's book, and that mildly. From what I've read so far I can't really agree that he is biased to the Republican side

Mister Revell,

Thank you for being open minded enough to check, I gave you the link as a quick and dirty way of finding out what's wrong with the book. I got carried away and wrote a long response, rather than the effort going to waste, I will post it anyway, even if this entire thread is totally off topic and should be moved.

British historians of the Spanish Civil War are usually leftist and biased in favor of the Reds (Stanley G. Payne excepted), and Beevor is not an exception, this is not the place to discuss the book, but he keeps repeating through the book the otudated marxist class analysis, shows fundamental ignorance of key questions, and even more telling in somebody that is acclaimed as a military historian, his work on military matters is full of mistakes, falsehoods and a lo of his numbers and statistics are just wrong.

I can't understand why this guy is so overrated, having been to Sandhurst and writing two books that have sold well, Berlin and Stalingrad, only means his publisher is good at marketing. I found his book about Crete dull and mediocre, and now that I've been prompted to look up what I found wrong with this book, wich i couldn't read entirely as I gave up in disgust, I can assure you it's plain bad.

British historiography about Spain in general leaves much to be desired as it is colored by ignorance, bias, animosity towards a former rival and enemy, cultural and religious differences and negative stereotyping. With all that baggage, what makes you think a British historian can fully understand and write accurately about a subject as complex, politically charged and recent as the Spanish Civil War? French historians on the subject, though sharing much of that, when they are not outright Marxists do give a more accurate analysis and portrayal of events, as they can relate to the issues having gone through the Revolution, the Commune de Paris, and the settling of scores after the Liberation.

What bugs me about the British academia attitude about the the SCW is the double standard applied. The British involvement against the Reds in the Russian Civil War is seen as positive in view of the terror and suffering the triumph of the Bolsheviks meant for Humanity. Likewise, the support of the government against the communists in the Greek Civil War is also seen as the correct thing to do.

Yet British historians doesn't seem to have gotten over the 1930s British infatuation with Marxism (recall Keynes admiration for the Soviet Union) and the gullibility of the British public that swallowed the propaganda about it being a war between fascism and democracy. The cynical pragmatism of the government of the time or what Winston Churchill had to say about it were a more accurate assesment of what was going on. It also plays a part that Nationalist, Catholic, Authoritarian Spain is anatema to nationalist, protestant, parliamentarian Britain. Franco being friendly to Hitler and Mussolini hasn't helped at all for the Nationalist side to get a fair treatment, one should check out again what Churchill thought about Franco.

The sympathy for the Reds is badly misplaced. The truth of the matter is that for reasons only fully known to them, the Spaniards set to kill each other. It was just a sideshow on the European wars, and frankly, is irritant that the British turned it into a historical hobby and a source of employment for mediocre historians that have nothing better to do, probably just because some British sods got killed in the International Brigades, and Hemingway and Orwell were doing tourism in it. The war ended 70 years ago, it's about time to get over it and stop wasting ink and paper about it.


Back on topic, taking all that into account, I have reason to question his judgement on Wolfram von Richthofen. If I were really, really interested in the man, I would pick one of the biographies written on him.

[Tim West]

Originally Posted by Romani

The war ended 70 years ago, it's about time to get over it and stop wasting ink and paper about it.

and The Great War ended 90 years ago......just say'in

[Michael_Dailey]

I am an MvR fan myself but I wouldn't so quickly posit that he would have went after Hitler or would have not tolerated terror bombings, etc. He was a product of his country and his time. I seem to recall in his autobiography that early in the war when he was in the cavalry, he didn't seem to mind the idea of taking hostages, executing civilians suspected of spying during the German drive through Belgium, etc.

MDD