Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding

  Dragon_Heart 01:21 14 Aug 2008

I was watching a program today about Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, Commander in Chief of Royal Air Force Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.

He was a very compassionate man who cared about the well being of his pilots or his 'chicks' as he called them. For example, he insisted that his men have bullet proof windscreens. He was always in conflict with his superiors due to his demands.

Late into 1940, after the Battle of Britain was effectively won, he was removed from office by what was basically a smear campaign.

That was happening in 1940 and 60 to 70 years later it is still happening

I got me thinking about my own work experiences, as humble as they were compared to the likes of Dowding, If you are in any way compassionate and care about the people you manage or work with you are considered a danger, a bit weird or both.

Are other forum members experiences similar ?

  laurie53 08:14 14 Aug 2008

Same thing happened to "Bomber" Harris.

For a few years the only senior officer to take the war directly to the enemy, and vilified for it.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 14:07 14 Aug 2008

It is comforting to know that when we bombed the life out of civilians (Pforzheim for one) this is seen as OK but when a 'terrorist' kills civilians this is seen a s barbaric.


  anchor 14:33 14 Aug 2008

There is a big difference between war and terrorism, and to compare them is inappropriate.

The bombing of civilians in WW2 was started by Germany in the Blitz, and the allies responded in kind. Unfortunately, that is war, and you know who your enemy is.

  lofty29 14:52 14 Aug 2008

Just to put a couple of points, the nazi's introduced "the blitzkreig" bombing civilians in the spanish civil war, intesified it in poland, but did not start the bombing raids on the UK civilian population until after the uk bombed Berlin, However I am all in gavour of Harris and Dowding, the only main mistake I think was in the bombing of Dresden. As far as terrorism goes it depends what side you are looking at it from, to my mind all un-uniformed combatants are terrorists, whether they are attacking civilian or military targets, with the exception of plain clothed police who should only use weapons in self defence

  version8 15:00 14 Aug 2008

For more click here

  DieSse 16:12 14 Aug 2008

It's much more comforting that we did what was needed to win - it was a close run thing at times.

  laurie53 21:32 14 Aug 2008

I'm afraid that the idea that civilians are not involved in modern total war is outdated

Those civilians are perhaps making munitions for the front line, growing food for serving soldiers in the front line, and maybe just knitting socks for submariners in a quiet little Bedfordshire village.

They are all contributing to the war effort.

In addition, your own civilians undergoing privation, and their uniformed relatives, need to know that their counterparts on the other side are facing the same privation.

The days when two armies went to a convenient field, slugged it out for a few hours, and then married the locals are long gone.

  Bingalau 22:06 14 Aug 2008

I seem to remember the Luftwaffe bombing cities in this country long before the Royal Air Force bombed Berlin.

  Main Access 22:08 14 Aug 2008

when does a freedom fighter become a 'terrorist'

  GRIDD 22:12 14 Aug 2008

I would say the one's that hijack planes and bomb buses etc.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Huawei MateBook X Pro review

8 digital brands that designed custom typefaces to save millions

How to speed up a slow Mac

Comment résoudre des problèmes d’impressions ?