Those comments were clearly intended to mean in the context of the Battle of the Atlantic.
The holocaust clearly has no relevance to the broader discussion of the U-boat war.
You brought in the firebombing of Dresden, and in that vein appeared to be making a broader statement of comparison with:
The Allies did far worse things, if only because they had the upper hand and had the industry to do the damage the Germans could not.
But fair enough, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the naval aspects of the battle of the Atlantic to delve into it further. Just be aware that your comments are easily taken as making a global comparison of the morality of Germany's and the Allies' actions in wartime.
Apparently you missed my point. I compared them specifically because they were performing a duty that was much the same, only the U-boat crews suffered worse casualty rates, suffered worse conditions for longer and yet had the opportunity to show humanity and compassion towards their victims while the bomber crews of either side had no such opportunity to demonstrate that kind of heroism, the kind of thing you usually see Allied soldiers doing in a war movie at some point.
I share your unease with some of the cheerily jingoistic portrayals of the Allied forces that came out in the immediate wake of the war, not to mention the equally ridiculous Hollywoodized versions from more recently. But what I took from your comments is that the air force bomber crews aren't deserving of a nuanced and sympathetic portrayal like Das Boot, because you dislike the consequences of their actions. I emphatically disagree.
Tora! Tora! Tora! is a good example of an film that got it right, more or less. It gives a window in the actions of both sides, but focusing on the individuals and the choices they made, rather than trying to paint either side as a singular entity with all minds acting as one. I think as a whole the Japanese war machine was despicable and cruel. But I acknowledge that not all of their soldiers acted like bloodthirty psychopaths, particularly the professional navy, and am glad TTT attempted to give them a voice instead of leaving them as faceless combatants or simply characterizing them as sadists like so many of its contemporaries.
It's not like bomber crews went out of their way to inflict harm, like soldiers murdering unarmed men to avoid taking prisoners or pillaging a village. They had an unpleasant job to do and they did it, in the belief that it was for the good of their country, to protect their loved ones and communities back home. You yourself remark on the "opportunity" or lack thereof for the pilots and submariners to demonstrate their humanity. Outside of committing treason, how was a bomber pilot to do so?
Your ire is more appropriately directed the generals and politicians who dictated strategy, and the post-war depictions of the conflict as a black and white matter of good versus evil, heroes against villains.
My greater point is not that we should excuse atrocities because it was war. It's that relativistic comparisons of 'morality' are not useful in and of themselves. They are apt to impede constructive dialogue by inflaming passions and forcing persons with sympathies one way or another to dig in and take sides. Ties that bind invariably overwhelm reason. A quick look around the net will turn up any number of discussions about conflict that devolved into "but they did it first!" "so? what they did is so much worse!" etc. etc. I think it's more beneficial to distinguish between the ways the war was prosecuted and the individual stories of those who participated in it - combatants and civilians alike. I'm sure that many of those lionized as "heroes" would agree.
Case in point, you can be sympathetic to the travails of a WWII U-Boat crew without condoning unrestricted submarine warfare or Nazi aggression.
reply
share
detroit-velvet-smooth
9 years ago
Just be aware that your comments are easily taken as making a global comparison of the morality of Germany's and the Allies' actions in wartime.
Which is not my problem. I can't stop every schnook from deciding to boil the complexities of the worst war in human history down to a simple good vs. evil morality play.
But what I took from your comments is that the air force bomber crews aren't deserving of a nuanced and sympathetic portrayal like Das Boot, because you dislike the consequences of their actions. I emphatically disagree.
Again, not my fault you decide to view it that way. I was not making a personal judgment of them but instead making an assertion about the nature of people's general attitude towards a similar wartime vocation that has received some acclaimed film portrayals.
Again, I see no reason for you to miss the point of my comments when I said that people seem to not have any qualms with sympathizing with bomber crews doing a job that is basically the same as that of a submarine crew. There is no automatic instinct to treat the bomber crews as undeserving of the same basic respect for enduring the sacrifice and hardship that people in war suffer. I only commented that it is in fact easier to argue for a moral reason to not sympathize compared to submariners. Where strategic bombing involved a deliberate attempt at inflicting civilian casualties, unrestricted submarine warfare did not, and certainly not on the same scale. It is if anything easier to damn the efforts of a bomber crew than those of a u-boat crew, except for when we switch off our brains and say the word "Nazi".
Taking anything else from that comparison is your problem, not mine.
It's not like bomber crews went out of their way to inflict harm, like soldiers murdering unarmed men to avoid taking prisoners or pillaging a village. They had an unpleasant job to do and they did it, in the belief that it was for the good of their country, to protect their loved ones and communities back home. You yourself remark on the "opportunity" or lack thereof for the pilots and submariners to demonstrate their humanity. Outside of committing treason, how was a bomber pilot to do so?
You are basically explaining the reasons why I made that comparison. German u-boat men did not go out of their way to inflict harm either on the whole. My point with respect to the opportunity to offer humanitarian assistance is that while bomber crews had none, u-boat men had to be ordered to NOT give assistance to their victims. So why we should have no issues sympathizing with the crew of the Memphis Belle but somehow have pause when it comes to the crew of U-96 is beyond me.
My greater point is not that we should excuse atrocities because it was war. It's that relativistic comparisons of 'morality' are not useful in and of themselves.
But I am not talking about morality, not from my personal perspective. I am commenting on the apparent moral issues people have with sympathizing with German sailors. Thats where this came from. You are projecting your own mindset on this discussion. I am speaking academically and responding to another person's criticism of the film which plainly said its hard to sympathize with anyone who fought for Nazi Germany.
You seem to be suggesting I should speak in a manner I have been all along. I firmly believe it is simply you failing to understand what I was saying all along. Its fine, people do that, but its not my fault that reasonable assertions get filtered through the binary mindset of shallow mainstream western history (which stands out against proper academic history).
reply
share
Sekraan
9 years ago
Ok, so we are in agreement.
I'm sorry if I irritated you. Your first two posts did have a degree of comparatives (e.g. "worse than," 'you were "harder on"') and suggestion of antipathy for the allied forces ("they[bomber crews]... responsible for far more barbaric acts," "callousness shown") that led me to misinterpret the tenor of your argument: 'U-Boat crews are more deserving of sympathy than the Allied bomber crews that wrought much more devastation' versus 'it's ignorant and misguided to dismiss/disdain U-Boat crews simply because they served the Third Reich.' I hope you can see how comments to the effect "that it is in fact easier to argue for a moral reason to not sympathize [with the bomber crews] compared to submariners" could be reasonably construed as actually making that argument, absent further clarification which you have since provided.
No disrespect intended in pointing that out, and I hope you take it as constructive feedback and not an affront.
Edit: Looking back at my initial reply I notice some poor choice of words, that perhaps came across as more antagonistic than intended. I also tend to approach things from an academic standpoint and sometimes neglect to adjust my writing style when in a more public forum.
reply
share
detroit-velvet-smooth
9 years ago
I often forget that when I speak in a purely academic tone people often project or interpret what I'm saying in another way. In this exchange I've in my mind while writing these replies kept an even tone and not been annoyed. Its just intellectual jousting as far as I'm concerned. I find that when discussing topic that often involves fast running emotions, such as when you have ample opportunity to mention the word Nazi, its important to stay sober minded about it all.
It is of course very dicey saying anything positive about the other side in WW2 and so I'm always prepared for the wrong conclusions to be taken. Still, the conclusions that are jumped to are generally in my opinion the result of bias and are not especially reasonable in intellectual terms. They are however reasonable as an expectation in terms of probabilities, sadly.
I take no special vigour in defending the soldiers of the Third Reich, but in my long readings of the Battle of the Atlantic I was immediately taken by the humanity of the men in the U-boats. As a result I find the assertion that its difficult to symapthize with them utterly incompatible with a fair reading of history.
reply
share