The BBC gave Griffin the oxygen of publicity. He choked

[oldironside]

"If you all attack on different fronts we'll never get anywhere," said David Dimbleby towards the end of the most-watched edition of Question Time for many years. He's said that sort of thing many times, of course, but it's never before had the flavour of a tactical suggestion.

After 30 minutes of singularly concentrated fire – almost everyone present directing their contempt at just one of the politicians present – this unique political consensus was briefly broken up over a question on Labour immigration policy. But it wasn't long before Griffin was under attack again – everyone present conspicuously aware that the following day they would be asked "what did you do in the war". And if you want a crude bottom line on victory and defeat you'd have to say that the principle of free speech had just about managed to stay upright while Mr Griffin had retired wounded. Was it an early Christmas present for the BNP, an audience member asked finally, as Peter Hain had charged? If it was it was one of those presents that requires you to adopt a fixed and unconvincing grin, and which falls apart in your hands even as the wrapping is coming off.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-bbc-gave-griffin-the-oxygen-of-publicity-he-choked-1807627.html

[non sociopath skin]

1. However, the reader comments on the Daily Wail site clearly indicate ...

... how this rag still appeals shamelessly, just as it did in the 30s and 60s, to the soft underbelly of British Fascism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222331/BNPs-Nick-Griffin-jeered-appears-Question-Time--BBC-faces-Question-Time.html#comments

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. You're right

Can't help but notice the article's best rated (praising Nick Griffin/BNP) and worst rated (praising Bonnie Greer, criticising Griffin) comments.

[T_i_B]

3. I think all the lefties have gone off to bash Jan Moir again

She's back on the top trending topics on Twitter. And that of course leaves the wingnuts on the Daily Fail website.

Although I haven't check how they are trying to spin things. Am I right in assuming it's all aimless BBC bashing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Griffin is now complaining he got too much attention

BNP leader Nick Griffin is to complain to the BBC over his controversial appearance on Question Time, saying he had faced a "lynch mob".
...
In a press conference on Friday, the BNP leader said he would be making an official complaint to the BBC about the programme, saying its normal format had been "twisted" so that it focused solely on his views.

He challenged the BBC to ask him on the show again and to allow a wider range of subjects to be discussed.

He also claimed the audience was not representative of the UK as a whole as levels of immigration in London meant it was "no longer a British city".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm

Poor diddums - wants to be taken seriously as a politician, as long as people ignore his actual policies and treat him as if he's normal. And the capital's not good enough for him now.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. A "lynch mob!" HA!

He could ask his "peaceful" friend/non-friend David Duke, the "peaceful" Ku Klux Klan have experience conducting lynch mobs.

Nick Griffin seems to be confusing a question-the-politicians television programme with the experience of being beaten, tortured, tied to the back of a truck and dragged by your hands, and being hanged from a tree with the 'n-word' plastered over you.

[fedsron2us]

5. Bit disappointed no one tackled Griffin about the BNP's use of a Spitfire

on their propaganda. I would have suggested to him that a Stuka would have been more appropriate.

[oldironside]

7. The great irony here was...

... that they chose a Spitfire belonging to a Polish squadron. Bloody foreigners, coming over here and defending our country.

[fedsron2us]

8. In the past Griffin is on record as accusing British airmen of mass murder

for their bombing of German cities in World War II. This rates a mention in his Wikipedia profile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin

I am a little surprised no one has picked him up on this comment and how he squares it with his party's supposed love of Churchill, who sanctioned the policy of area bombing. Indeed, RAF Bomber Commands activities at key stages in the Battle of Britain had a direct impact on German tactics which was every bit as important as squadrons of Spitfires to ensuring that these isles were not invaded by the Nazis. Instead of just slating him as a racist and a fascist people should be nailing him as a hypocrite and potential traitor. We all know who he really wanted to win in 1940.

[oldironside]

9. In accusing the RAF of mass murder...

... he may have had a point. Just take a walk around any German city and see the number of buildings with signs on saying they were destroyed in the Second World War and then rebuilt in the 50s. For the bulk of the campaign (1942-early 1945) the Bomber Command was targeting workers' housing and moral (the notorious Directive No. 22). Difficult to see how you can bomb the houses and not kill the inhabitants.

As for the Battle of Britain, yes, the RAF's bombing of Berlin did play a part in the Luftwaffe changing it's tactics, and certainly helped put Hitler's blood pressure up, but it was in retaliation for a group of German bombers mistakenly dumping their bombs on London on the 24th August.

In addition, you also have to take into account the Luftwaffe's appallingly incomptetent intelligence service, which assured its masters that the RAF was down to its last 50 Spitfires. The truth of the matter was that the front line strength of Fighter Command had hardly altered (around 600 single seat fighters), but the reserve was being whittled away and the strain on the pilots was far more of an issue. Had they known this it was doubtful they would have stopped bombing the Sector Stations.

As for the general thrust of your post, I agree wholeheartedly. Griffin may like to see himself as Churchill, but he's far more of a John Amery.

[fedsron2us]

12. Area bombing was a case of what goes around comes around

Most of the tactics employed by the RAF in their attacks on Germany, such as mixing incendaries with high explosives, were picked up from the Luftwaffe during the Blitz on London and other British cities (Coventry being a prime early example of 'area' bombing in practice).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz

Night bombing was notoriously inaccurate (studies showed most bombs fell more than a mile from the target) and the majority of bombs dropped fell on civilian houses regardless of whether or not they were aimed at military installations or dropped on city areas as set out under Directive 22. Given that in most prewar British and German towns domestic urban housing and factories were sited close to each other (car ownership amongst industrial workers being extremely rare) this was almost inevitable.

The argument propounded by Griffin in his Rune article that German civilians were defenceless against RAF bomber attacks does not stand up to close examination. Until the early months of 1945 most German cities had some of the best air protection systems in the world with skies patrolled by night fighters and the largest towns surrounded by massive flak towers. In fact the RAF had to call off its Lancaster raids on Berlin in 1944 because the losses were so staggering. RAF bomber crews had approximately 45% mortality rate (only German U-boat crew members were more likely to die in the course of their duties). It is estimated that somewhere in the region of 600,000 German civilians were killed by Allied bombing in World War 2 with 55,573 RAF and 26,000 US 8th Airforce personnel dying in the process (a ratio of about 9:1).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#Strategic_bombing_1942-45

The biggest moral failing of area bombing was that the loss of life on both sides did not really produce the desired military results (although it did tie up a lot of Nazi military resources and manpower).

The politicians such as Churchill were keen to distance themselves from the policy after the war but there can be no doubt that they should bear the primary responsibility for sanctioning area bombing not the aircrews who posthumously got lumbered with the blame.

By the way the Bomber Command raids in the Battle of Britain I was referring to related to attacks on Hitlers invasion barges and the embarcation ports not the attack on Berlin.

[fedsron2us]

13. Interestingly Wikipedia shows that the notorious 'Area Bombing Directive 22'

was only in force from 1942 to 1943. It was actually superseded by the Casablanca directive in January 1943 issued to both the RAF and USAF

The primary objective was "The progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened. Every opportunity to be taken to attack Germany by day to destroy objectives that are unsuitable for night attack, to sustain continuous pressure on German morale, to impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to conserve German fighter force for the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war"<12> A list of target systems was also drawn up which gave priority to (a) Submarine construction yards, (b) German aircraft industry, (c) transportation, (d) oil plants (e) other targets in enemy war industry. The priority was to be varied with the strategic situation and the u-boat bases in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_directive

It was this policy which was in force when the great firestorm raid on Hamburg took place in 1943 and when Dresden was attacked in 1945.

[oldironside]

15. I feel I must respond.

None of what you have posted has refuted the allegation that RAF Bomber Command committed murder against civilians and I have to take issue with several points.

1. You said that area bombing is notoriously inaccurate. You cannot reduce the highly complex issue of Bomber Command's policy changes to a single short sentence. The issue of whether it is inaccurate or not is hardly important. What is relevant is whether it was (a) militarily necessary and (b) a war crime.

The RAF began the war with a so called oil bombing policy. They would mount pinpoint attacks on oil installations and thereby bring the German war machine to a stand still. It failed because the Wellingtons and Hampdens which were supposed to penetrate German airspace in daylight couldn't defend themselves against German fighters. So, they joined the Whitleys in bombing by night, using the time honoured method of the compass and sextant to navigate. This failed because they simply couldn't find the relevant city, let alone the individual refinery or storage tanks.

To give an idea of their lack of accuracy, here is a quote from R.V. Jones, head of British Scientific Intelligence during the Second World War.
"I remember paricularly a raid on the Skoda Words at Pilsen, duly announced by the BBC. A friendly Czech indignantly told us that everyone in Pilsen knew that there had been no raid, and that the nearest bomb that had fallen was fifty miles away." <1>
This led directly to the Butt report, which showed that when attacking the Ruhr, only 10% of RAF bombers got within five miles of their targets. <2>

It was this sort of inaccuracy that led to Directive 22, and Operation Gommorah. There is a clear and unambiguous difference between air operations by both sides before Directive 22 and after it.
"From this moment on the target areas for the pilots lay in residential areas and not, as previously, in shipyards and industrial areas." <3>

As you say, Directive 22 was recinded in January 1943, to be replaced by the Pointblank plan, but this in no way led to a practical modification of British policy. To quote Dr. Jones again:
"... and the coordination of the two campaigns (i.e. the US and RAF efforts) went no further than Bomber Command area-bombing by night the towns in which ballbearing or other targets were being bombed by the American by day."<4>

Area bombing may have appeared necessary during 1942, since Bomber Command was the only offensive weapon open to Britain. However, with the introduction of new navigation and blind bombing aids during 1943 (Gee, H2S, and Oboe) it now became possible for the RAF to bomb as accurately by night as the 8th Air Force could by day. Indeed, the Americans even adopted H2S to allow them to bomb through overcast. Given this it would have been (a) possible and (b) much more effective for the RAF to return to its original oil bombing policy. That it didn't can be almost exlusively blamed on one man, Sir Arthur Harris.

Yes, there was nothing more on the scale of Hamburg during 1944, but the RAF continued to bomb German cities night after night, in defiance of military logic and our own sense of moral superiority.

2. You state that Germany had "some of the best air raid protection in the world" as though this makes bombing civilian targets acceptable. Okay, the best compared to what? A poor second best to the British system (compare German losses during the Bädecker Blitz and the Baby Blitz to see how effective Britain's night defences were). Compared to Italy? Non existant. Japan? The US? The German system had severe weaknesses (such as the inability of the Würzburg radar set to track more than one aircraft at once, the notorious inaccuracy of Flak batteries <5>) but their existence is irrelevant. If I break into your house and kill 9 members of your family, is it any less of a crime if you manage to kill me before I escape or not?

3. "The biggest moral failing of area bombing was that the loss of life on both sides did not produce the desired military results." This is not a moral failing, but rather a practical one. The moral failing was that a liberal democracy felt it necessary to bomb civilians.

4. "RAF bomber activities at key stages in the Battle of Britain had a direct impact on German tactics." If you were referring to the barge bombing and not the retaliatory raids on Berlin, then I have to ask, how did this affect the German tactics?



References.
1. Most Secret War, R.V. Jones, Coronet, 1979, page 274
2. Ibid. page 275
3. Göring, Eine Karriere, Guido Knopp, Goldman, 2007, page 165, author's translation from the original German.
4. Jones, page 487
5. see Eagles Of The Third Reich, Samuel Mitcham, Guild Publishing 1989, page 112 for a further exploration of this topic

[T_i_B]

10. Looking at the front pages this morning...

...I wonder how much of the "FEEL TEH OUTRAGE" coverage was written in advance of the programme being aired anyway. As the below blog post makes clear, it's also very hypocritical for some of the UK papers.

http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/hmm-remember-this.html

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. You're right

It's rather self-indulgent for the Daily Hate, Di'ly Express et al. to oppose the BNP while spreading fictional racially-tainted stories that have given the BNP a long-sustained propaganda boost. No wonder that Griffin calls Richard Littlejohn his favourite author.

[alp227]

14. What about the 16 foreign "hate promoters" banned from entering the UK?

I just realized this and now find some hypocrisy. The UK Home Office bans well-known American hate-mongerer Michael Savage from the UK (along with 15 other publicly disclosed nutjobs), but Britain's biggest public broadcaster allows that clown Nazi Nick on the air?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. The Guardian said that the BBC feared a "stunning victory in the High Court"

by the BNP, to enforce allowed air-time due to the BNP securing a certain percentage of votes in the European Elections.

[alp227]

18. So what's the difference between Griffin and the sleazy 16?

I mean, wouldn't Griffin's racist rhetoric be considered to instigate hatred as much as Michael Savage's for instance? What's the difference between them besides the fact that the sleazy 16 are all foreigners? IMO it's pretty hypocritical for the UK government to allow racist citizens to spew out their BS publicly but ban foreigners who hold the same opinions from their soil.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Hypocritical in a way; but one could argue...

that as long as there are national borders, countries have a right to exclude objectionable people who are not citizens, whereas they cannot suppress their own citizens' expression of objectionable views. Thus, citizens have the right to freedom of speech, but non-citizens don't have an automatic right to enter the UK. For that matter, the USA prides itself on its 'First Amendment', but this never extended to enthusiasm for letting Communists, or currently Islamists, into the USA.

I admit that it is hypocritical, if legal.

[dipsydoodle]

17. He choked - as did Jack Straw

with his reluctance to answer the question on immigration. It was a shame that Paxman didn't ask the question ....lol.