Bomber Harris Interview on TV (merged - AGAIN!) [Archive]

Party Animal

12th Feb 2013, 13:34

Danny,

Not that I think you need it but if it's any consolation:

There are many of us on here (myself included) who would like to look you in the eye, thank you with the deepest sincerity for you efforts during WW2, shake your hand and buy you a pint in your local pub. I personally would also love to chat in depth about your experiences and hear all of your stories from those days. I would also want you to have no illusions about how much I/we respect you.

Then there are those who I truly believe are the silent majority who will also respect you with awe. They may not make a 'song and dance' about it but you have their support and deepest thanks.

Then there are those (sadly increasing in numbers) liberals who shout the loudest and hide under the umbrella of political correctness, gay rights, equality and diversity agendas etc.. who I personally think have done more damage to this country than Hitler ever could. None of them will admit that without people like yourself, they would probably be speaking German now and none of them will accept that they have the ability to criticise war leaders as murderers because people like you fought to maintain their right to free speech.

Bottom line here, you have the respect of the majority of the nation and for your efforts sir, we thank you

old-timer

12th Feb 2013, 14:18

I feel Noel Cowards famous lines say it all, heroes one & all.

BOMBER BOYS REMEMBERED

Lie in the dark and listen.
It's clear tonight so they're flying high,
Hundreds of them, thousands perhaps,
Riding the icy, moonlit sky.
Men, machinery, bombs and maps,
Altimeters and guns and charts,
Coffee, sandwiches, fleece-lined boots,
Bones and muscles and minds and hearts,
English saplings with English roots
Deep in the earth they've left below.
Lie in the dark and let them go;
Theirs is a world we'll never know.
Lie in the dark and listen.

Lie in the dark and listen.
They're going over in waves and waves,
High above villages, hills and streams,
Country churches and little graves
And little citizen's worried dreams;
Very soon they'll have reached the sea.
And far below them will lie the bays
And cliffs and sands where they used to be.
Taken for summer holidays.
Lie in the dark and let them go.
Deep in the earth they've left below.
Lie in the dark and let them go;
Theirs is a world we'll never know.
Lie in the dark and listen.

City magnates and steel contractors,
Factory workers and politicians.
Soft hysterical little actors,
Ballet dancers, reserved musicians,
Safe in your warm civilian beds.
Count your profits and count your sheep,
Life is passing above your heads,
Just turn over and try to sleep.
Lie in the dark and let them go;
There's one debt you'll forever owe,
Deep in the earth they've left below.
Lie in the dark and let them go;
Theirs is a world we'll never know.
Lie in the dark and listen.

Nöel Coward

old-timer

12th Feb 2013, 14:27

Well said Party Animal - I'm with you on that.

Respects to all the Bomber Boys, I salute them all.

Pontius Navigator

12th Feb 2013, 15:36

"Moreover, we were the only Service fully on the offensive. Bomber Command was hitting back, night after night, far harder, but in exactly the same way, as the enemy had bombed (and were still bombing) us in the "Blitz". Nobody felt the slightest guilt about it at the time - that was a luxury we could allow ourselves post-war, long after the danger was past".

Recall too that Bomber Command* crews of he 50s and 60s were equally committed retaliation while at the same time hoping that deterrence would work.

Also allowed the CND the luxury to propagate their peacenik theories.

*and of course all the other nuclear forces.

smujsmith

12th Feb 2013, 17:38

It takes little research to find that the 'maroons' (have I spelt that right?) :mad: who are critical of our tactics in WW2, are the same head banging idiots who will automatically support global warming, anti whale hunting etc etc. Basically, people who will always try to 'wind up' people who respect the way things happened. I feel very sorry that my 30 years of service (not WW2) means nothing, if I'm to believe such people. Maybe one day the guys of Bomber Command will achieve the true respect that they deserve. I know that most ppruners already do. Danny thanks for your input to this thread, you are someone that gave us our right to comment.

Smudge

Downwind.Maddl-Land

12th Feb 2013, 17:38

Party Animal post #17

D'accord!!! +1000 :D

Danny42C

12th Feb 2013, 23:11

Thank you chaps, for the kind words about me. MayI quote:

Party Animal:

"I personally would also love to chat in depth about your experiences and hear all of your stories from those days".

old-timer:

"Well said Party Animal - I'm with you on that".

Downwind Maddi-Land:

"Party Animal post #17 D'accord!!! + 1000"

Gentlemen,

I tell of my experiences on the "Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet" Thread, starting #2250 on p. 113 and still going strong. I would be delighted to "chat in depth" , and receive comment, or answer questions - to the best of my ability (on open Post on that Thread) on any of my Posts......D

smujsmith,

I think "moron" is the word you seek...Thank you for the compliments.....D.

Cheers to you all, Danny.

Andu

13th Feb 2013, 00:49

Back on page 1, Chugalug2 said: If you have to fight a war, fight it to win or just don't bother fighting at all, for you will lose.Since Korea, and in every war we've been involved in since, our political leaders seem to have turned away from this premise, a premise that has been starkly obvious to any military man, from Jackie Fisher to Douglas MacArthur and how many since.

I'd be willing to bet my pension that events currently transpiring in Afghanistan, where we will declare 'victory' and then leave our Afghan allies in the lurch, will result in the total defeat of the anti-Taliban forces within two years. For, as has become usual since 1950, our leaders have decided we should semi-fight a war against a succession of enemies who, to borrow a phrase from the American/Japanese Niesi in WW2, 'go for broke' in every way.

The pond life who make up 99% of politicians of all persuasions make use of MEN like Arthur Harris when their own futures are at risk, but are all too quick to abandon them when the danger has passed. I find myself hoping that when (not if) the politicians in the West again realise that they require another Arthur Harris,
(a) they give him full reign to win, whatever that involves, and
(b) we have the military assets, treasure and will to prevail.

The way those same politicians are spending our national treasure on useless vote-buying, I fear, when the time comes, point (b) might be found wanting.

Tankertrashnav

13th Feb 2013, 08:43

Whenever I read uncritical adulation of the Red Army, and the oft-stated view that the Russians won the war for us, with events in the West being a mere sideshow, I remember that that were it not for the relentless efforts of Bomber Command (and the USAAF 8th Air Force from 1942) the Russians, who took virtually no part in the strategic bombing offensive, would have been invading a very different Germany with its defences and industries intact, as of course would the allied armies coming in from the West.

Chugalug2

13th Feb 2013, 09:49

TTN, I would go further than that. If Bomber Command and its USAAF counterparts had not conducted their campaigns with the determination, courage, and sacrifice that they did, there would in all probability have been no Red Army advance to the West and no corresponding Allied advance to the East. Unhindered, German tank production could have matched the Russian one, and the strategically important close run Battle of Kirsk could have swung the other way, with the advancing done by the Wehrmacht. Equally the close run Allied D-Day Invasion of France would have been a rout if the Luftwaffe had been present in force, had we been foolish enough to launch it under such conditions. It was of course elsewhere though, defending the skies of the Reich.
If Hitler had succeeded in the East I doubt if we would ever have managed to invade him in the West. Both fronts depended on that third vital front, the Battle of Germany from above. It is a scandal that it was never given the recognition that it deserved.

500N

13th Feb 2013, 10:18

Chugalug

Very good summary.

They know they did well, just wish they would have got
the accolades they should have.

Yamagata ken

13th Feb 2013, 10:38

Something I've always wondered about. For the French/Belgians/Dutch/Danes, 1940 and 1941 all the heavy metal was heading west. Then there came a change. What was the effect for those in occupied countries when the bomber streams were heading for Germany? It must have been proof (despite any propaganda) that the allies weren't losing. I'd have found that cheering.

Geriaviator

13th Feb 2013, 11:35

The BBC produces the world's best TV and radio programmes, but mention Bomber Command and they lose it completely.

Last year I watched a pair of "experts" wander around Hamburg and bleat that all this vast civilian area had been destroyed in the devastating firestorm of 1943. There was no mention of the fact that Hamburg was the main centre for U-boat production, that Churchill said after the war that the U-boat campaign was the one that worried him more than any other, and that 1943 was the height of that campaign. Speer said later that the Hamburg raid had a very severe effect on U-boat production.

I wrote to the BBC pointing this out but of course was ignored because it wasn't what the "experts" wanted to hear. Likewise more lamentation on the Today programme this morning on the anniversary of Dresden, even a description of the bombing techniques, but of course no mention of how those techniques were developed by the Germans and introduced in the skies above Coventry a few years previously. And of course it was all the RAF's work, no mention of the American daylight raids which followed the RAF's night attacks. As Harris said, Germany had sown the wind and would reap the whirlwind.

Agreed that the Dresden raid was terrible, as were the raids on countless other cities. War has no winners except the arms manufacturers. The losers included more than 55000 Bomber Command aircrew who gave their lives so the BBC would not have William Joyce, Lord Haw Haw, as its director-general, and we and the Beeb would have the freedoms we enjoy today.

LowNSlow

13th Feb 2013, 11:39

Another point often forgotten is that Germany produced over 20,000 of the lethal 88mm cannon and over 4,000 of the fearsome 105mm cannon.

As far as I can tell about 75% of these guns were used to defend the Reich from the RAF / USAAF bomber attacks. There would have been more if it hadn't been for the efforts of my Dad and his fellow aviators who regularly tried to reduce the Krupps works in Essen to rubble.

If these guns had made it to the Western Desert and the Eastern Front then the Allied tank attacks might have had a different outcome.

Geriaviator, I think that RAF Bomber Command "sank" more U-Boats by bombing the shipyards than the RN and Coastal Command combined.

Taphappy

13th Feb 2013, 19:55

Why the need to feel any guilt.?
We were involved in total war and the end result justified the means.
Bomber Command has never received the honour which it truly drserved and their reputation has been besmirched by those people who only put their heads above the parapet when the shooting war was over.
Danny, good to see you popping up on another thread

500N

13th Feb 2013, 20:24

"We were involved in total war and the end result justified the means."

And what geriaviator said re the Germans.

I've been out of the UK quite a while so don't see everything that
is on TV but see what programs come on pay TV here - often
the same.

Really, even when I was in the UK not much is shown about the effect of the Bombing on Britain, V1's, V2's etc.

It's only because my Grand mother talked to me about it - often
because I asked - and the stories of my mother that I know
about it at all, what it was like to live in a city being bombed
every day, running for the air raid shelter, being machine gunned
shot up by a plane on the way home with my aunt.

I asked my GF's kids the other day, WWII doesn't even rate !

So it's not surprising if all they show is the one sided view.

We have nothing to apologise for.

Danny42C

13th Feb 2013, 20:28

May I heartily support Andu (#24 p.2) in his quotation from Chugalug (#11 p. 1):

"If you have to fight a war, fight it to win or just don't bother fighting at all, for you will lose"

Chugalug has hit the nail exactly on the head here. This weird concept that you can in some way half-fight a war has only appeared in the last 20-30 years. It flowered in the Falklands. When a country invades your sovereign territory, a de facto state of war exists, whether either party likes it or not. You cannot be: "willing to wound, but afraid to strike". (It so happened that we won, as we had in charge the first - and last - statesman we've had since Churchill).

Now consider the Belgrano affair. It would have been legitimate for us to have attacked it in harbour, if we could. When it put to sea, it was not so that the crew could enjoy a sea cruise. It was at sea to do us harm, and for no other reason. But then: "Was it in the "Exclusion Zone" ? (in itself a fatuous attempt to "limit" - ie half-fight - the war) or out of the "Exclusion Zone" ? Was it in, but going out, or out but going in ? Was it actually turning to go out ?

All utterly irrelevant. The Conqueror which had been shadowing it now had it in its sights, in range, torpedo tubes loaded. What would one of Nelson's captains have done ? What did our poor chap have to do ? Signal to HQ at Northwood for permission to fire ! (Nelson must be whizzing round in his grave !)

All this may seem off-thread. But the thinking behind all the weeping and wailing (all those poor Argentinian sailors !) that followed exactly mirrors that of our present detractors of Harris and his heroes (and I use that word advisedly).

Having got that off my chest, I have little to add to the absolutely correct analyses of the situation (and the policy we adopted) which have appeared here. War is terrible for everbody involved, and there is no way to limit its effects. I would only add that the effect of the bombing campaign on our morale must never be underestimated. You can "take it" far more cheerfully when you know you're also "giving it out" hard (that was the main function of the AA batteries, they didn't hit much, but they sure made a hell of a row).

D.

smujsmith

13th Feb 2013, 21:39

Danny,

Once again thanks for an accurate and concise assessment of 'modern warfare, and political/ populist' attitudes. It's hard to criticise, and I would not have the temerity to do so, anyone who has never 'been there' when it comes to warfare. For my part I have been involved in only minor stuff compared to what happened in WW2, and, believe that my own experiences are enough to ensure I have no 'creeping attraction' to such activities. Gulf War 1, Sarajevo, Rwanda and other skirmishes leave little to glory in (whatever feelings of 'doing right' one may have). It seems to me that there is always a belief in successive generations, that, they ( a more moral and understanding society) will not succumb to war. This often allows them to feel they hold the moral high ground on preceding generations. But then, here we are again, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria ? Etc.

In every case there will be a political imperative that requires military servants to comply. It's a sad indictment of our society that a soldier, doing his duty, is to carry the burden of responsibility for decisions made by people who will not face the threat of even seeing the enemy, let alone facing the enemy. I can have nothing but contempt for the politicians who so casually both laud, in their solemn repeating of our lost servicemens names every week, and then, announce the redundancies to be applied on their surviving comrades return from theatre. And three years from now the whole thing will be the fault of some General, Air Vice Marshal etc.

Sorry, obviously I'm ranting, but, I wonder why anyone would want to be part of the defence forces of the UK these days, when they are so obviously held,in contempt by many who have no understanding of their situation. End of rant, apologies to all.

dulce bellum inexpertis

Smudge

stumpey

14th Feb 2013, 02:42

A Great man maybe, but in this film he shows an un-canny resemblance to Albert Tatlock. I kept expecting Minnie Caldwell to bring in a bottle of stout!

Sad thing is, Albert is probably remembered by more people than BH. :(

Chugalug2

14th Feb 2013, 11:59

The Inside Out West Midlands 11/02/2013 Harris interview starts at 20'30" into the prog. :-
BBC iPlayer - Inside Out West: 11/02/2013 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qnph9/Inside_Out_West_11_02_2013/)
Unfortunately it is about the interview rather than of it, so hopefully we can be allowed to view it one day from start to finish, without the "explanations" interspersed here. That would of course lead to us having to make up our own minds rather than having them made up for us, so perhaps not...

PS, Edited to thoroughly endorse Danny's bestowing the title "our last Statesman" to Margaret Thatcher. No PC drivel there then about statesperson or stateswoman or Ms or whatever. I'm pretty certain she would be touched by the accolade and in full agreement with the sentiments behind it.

Blacksheep

15th Feb 2013, 12:21

Someone started a "Dresden Bombing" thread on another forum I frequent and, peacetime Bomber Command ground crew veteran that I am, I leapt to Bomber Harris's defence. The thread starter was man enough to admit that he had not been aware of the facts that I included - especially the involvement of "Ultra" intelligence on the fortification of the city against Marshal Koniev's advance - and acknowledged that he had been wrong to describe the attack as unjustified.

Those who condemn the bomber offensive as a war crime miss the point that WW2 was an all out war that had to be ended as quickly as possible by totally destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. The same applies to the atomic attack on Hiroshima, hundreds of thousands died so that tens of millions might live.

sp6

15th Feb 2013, 13:04

George Thompson VC

Every couple of years I give a talk to the local primary school about George Thompson VC whose name is on the village War Memorial. The oldest children have WWII Home Front as a project.

To make it more interactive, the children make up flying brevets so we can form them into Lancaster crews - nav, pilot air gunner etc. Halfway through the talk, the children sit in rows in the order the crews sat. I do a bit on RISE, comradeship "can I have your egg if you don't get back" etc.

This year I had 12 "crews" and for a change, to show the sacrifice and the losses, I started whittling the crews down, making the children "shot down" stand at the edge of the sports hall while asking those that were left how they felt about having to carry on after losing friends.

Eventually, to make the point that surviving a tour was well on impossible, we had 50 odd kids surrounding a solitary remaining crew who I used to tell the story of George Thompson VC, 9 Sqn.

Sometimes the brain can't comprehend stats like 55,000 dead, or only 10% who started the war survived the war in Bomber Command. But when you've 50 "dead" 10-12 year olds surrounding the surviving 7 children, it was a pretty effective visual indication of the sacrifice.

Oh - last thing for the BBC etc. When Dresden was ordered, V2's were still landing on London & Holland indiscriminately killing, and my mob, 602 Sqn were dive-bombing the launching sites to try and stop them. You cannot apply modern niceties to historical decisions!

ancientaviator62

16th Feb 2013, 08:01

I remember seeing an interview on TV with a German historian regarding the bombing of Germany in WW2. He could not see what the controversy was all about said 'why did the German people think they were immune from the sort of devastation that they had visited on the rest of Europe ?' The real 'War Crime' would have been to have done nothing at all when the only way we had of striking back at Germany was the Bomber Offensive. Reminds me of the Belgrano sinking. Again post conflict one of the Argentinian admirals said if he were in our position he would have done the same. Still it is the nature of these critics to abuse the freedom bought at such great personal expense by other brave men.

thegypsy

17th Feb 2013, 08:20

Night Bombers

Eastward they climb,black shapes against the grey
Of falling dusk,gone with the nodding day
From English fields.
Not theirs the sudden glow
Of triumph that their fighter -brothers know;
Only to fly through cloud,through storm,through
night
Unerring,and to keep their purpose bright,
Nor turn until,their dreadful duty done,
Westward they climb to race the awakened sun.

Pali

18th Feb 2013, 09:03

Perception of events will change during the time. What was considered as a standard approach for war opps in WW2 would not stand the test today. When I see returning soldiers from our semi-wars of today I see heroes, but I am not so certain if the politicians who are sending them are not criminals after all.

Accept my apologies for mistakes in English language however it is not my native tongue.

In the beginning I want to reassure all involved - you fought a just case. I visited Auschwitz very recently (see some photos here (http://500px.com/PavolTimko)) and it was quite a hard experience to see all that stuff. The problem starts with imagination. To see a big heap of children shoes, barracks, crematoria, etc. that is horrible per se, but when I stood at the edge of stairs to gas chambers I couldn't help myself and I just had to think about what the victims felt, what went on - I even couldn't imagine how any SS-man could stand that environment.

So yes, it was good to fight Nazi Germany at whatever toll. The problem is the imagination. It is very human to think about the consequences of own deeds. If you were a member of bomber crew you may try not to think about what happened down in the fire storm you incinerated. You have the luxury of being far and you have very little choice after all. An order is an order and that's it. I remember a film with Clint Eastwood (Gran Torino) where he plays a Korea war veteran and there is a priest who wants him to confess. Priest used an expression - you must suffer from all you did though it was ordered. But that was not the real problem. In the course of film Eastwood will say unforgettable line: It is what you did what was NOT ORDERED which will haunt you…

I remember few discussions with my UK friends and I was amazed how many of them were ashamed till today about Munich agreement when Britain broke the word and let us Czechoslovakians being swallowed by Hitler. But it is me who feel ashamed that our politicians decided to capitulate under the threat of total war with Germany. Yes, I really think it is better for a nation to take the toll for keeping own honour even if the situation seems hopeless.

There is a great film about the ordeal of a soldier who participated in an action which haunts him since - watch Last Samurai film and the way Cpt. Algren deals with his conscience and what is the way out after all.

What I try to say with this long essay - nobody can really say what a soldier should feel about own deeds. I am far from saying that Bomber Harris did something which can be considered as war crime (from a today's viewpoint) nor I know how far it was ordered to him or if it was his own idea on how to make war. I just know that sentient individual will be far from making categorical statements. Can you stand an idea that you bombed a little child who died in a horrible pain? Yes, off course you can, but…
I've read once that Britons hated U-Boats very much but once they saw the famous film Das Boot they suddenly saw a common german sailor - crew member who served and suffered too and the feeling regarding U-Boot sort of changed in UK (at least by those who saw the film).

I heard about drone operator who attacked a dwelling with suspected Taliban targets but at the very last second he saw a little child appearing on the scene. I can imagine that he has something to think about for the rest of his life.

It is our imagination which will work here (against us). Did you know that one of the reasons why Nazis decided to use gas chambers? Because it was not possible to ask SS members to shoot so many women and children. They actually tried but it created so much trouble that they had to change the way how to accomplish this grim task. I tell you, I had to weep when I edited my photos from Auschwitz…

Why so many people started doubts about bombing cities in WW2? Because journalists started to cover the war latest in 60's. US probably lost Vietnam war because of imagination. It was horrible for civilians, soldiers and PUBLIC to watch the war.

It was sort of bearable for bombing crews to do their job. If the same people would be infantry and they would be asked to demolish the same buildings with artillery face to face knowing civilians are dwelling inside they would probably oppose the order. Because imagination will fail you if you are closer to the battlefield and suffering.

I think that if any Air Marshall would order the same course of action today he would probably end as a war criminal. I don't say it was the same thing THEN. Also the belief that nation can be broken and demand the end of war is wrong. Britain was not broken by Blitz and Germans weren't too. Different times different viewpoints. The main difference is how public is looking at the issue TODAY.

Bomber crews had a very little choice and I consider them being heroes. They defended own country, bravely and with fatal end in too many instances. The higher command the more responsibility. But it is far from being black or white.

If anybody want me to make finite judgements then my answer is NO. I feel with commanders, with soldiers (and all the victims). Some people who faced action during any war may come away with it, but it is all about empathy and imagination.

We better avoid wars, don't we?

Chugalug2

18th Feb 2013, 09:33

Pali:-
We better avoid wars, don't we?
Well Amen to that! The only trouble is that we can't always avoid them. Heaven knows we (the Brits) tried to avoid them in the 1930's, at the cost of your country amongst others, Pali! But in the end we failed and the rest is, well, history. One we did avoid though was WW3, and we avoided it by being ready to fight and to be seen to be ready to fight. If we had failed there as well, your country would again have been in the front line and the destruction levelled upon it, and all the others, would have made what Harris presided over seem minor league.
We always look back on past major wars with disgust, not only at the cost in lives and materiel, but also in the way they were conducted, as though we could have conducted them better ourselves. Far more appropriate perhaps to judge ourselves rather than judge others. What are we doing to avoid future conflict? Is our country ready to stand up and be counted, or merely to rely on others to do the dirty work? Are we ready and willing to fight, or do we prefer to criticise those who are? Better by far to carry a big stick and talk quietly rather than shrill empty handed at those prepared to confront evil.
War has a nasty habit of being unavoidable, I'm afraid, no matter how agreed we are about its evilness.
Thank you for posting here, Pali, a welcome fresh outlook from afar!

Chris Scott

18th Feb 2013, 11:59

Pali,

Thank you for giving us the perspective of one whose grandparents presumably experienced the Nazi jackboot, and who himself grew up in the Soviet Empire. I had the privilege of flying with Josef Rechka in my youth, and his dignified reticence to recount his experiences gave me a tiny insight of the agony of the Czechoslovaks.

You may have noticed that Britain has been slowly brainwashed by the liberal, metropolitan elite, which longs to disassociate itself from the very actions which preserved the freedom it enjoys. Most of our leading politicians, some of them children of the CND, are barely old enough to have understood the Cold War; certainly not old enough to have been dismayed by news of the crushing of the Prague Spring.

To follow on from Chugalug2, we now have a prime minister whose instinct is to rail against tyranny abroad; but with too shrill a voice, while chopping up his stick for firewood.

Fareastdriver

18th Feb 2013, 12:23

Don't blame the generals for what happens in wars. Generals don't start wars, it's politicians that start wars.

Generals stop them.

Blacksheep

18th Feb 2013, 12:24

Different times different viewpoints. The main difference is how public is looking at the issue TODAY.No. The fact is, Bomber Command and its leader were placed at arm's length right from VE day. By those who had selected the targets and given AM Harris his orders. The objective of disabling Germany's ability to wage war was achieved, but our political leaders of the time could not stomach taking responsibility for the consequences of what it took to do that.

Your comment on U-Boats was interesting. My father's ship forced U845 to the surface then sank the U-Boat in a one hour running surface engagement before rescuing the survivors. The submariners expected rough treatment from the RN ratings but were surprised at being treated well, with a change of clothing, hot food and cigarettes. The surviving members of the two crews remain in contact to this day. As my father says, all who venture upon the sea are comrades, it is the sea itself that is the cruel enemy.

Pali

18th Feb 2013, 14:02

Interesting debate here :ok:

In fact my grandfather fought in WW1 on eastern front. He was paramedic and being wounded by machine gun fire. Then my father was too young to fight in WW2. That war was a big tragedy and the shame of capitulation after Munich agreement was gradually repaired by the actions of Czechoslovak pilots fighting in RAF during battle of Britain. Also there was an uprising in Slovakia in 1944 which took Germans more than 2 months to crush it and even then the partisan groups bothered Nazi till the end.

If there would be conflict with NATO during my military time I would serve as SAM operator and I would aim our rocketry at some readers of this forum. Thank God it never happened because I would be in a position when I would have to fight on the wrong side. I would perceive it as defending soviet system rather than homeland :ouch: Communist regime was an oppression which most of you can't even imagine, it was even more vicious than Nazi at times.

When I look into history I can clearly see that common people seem to have too little power to stop the war. But there is one thing which can be done. Long before major war can start there is always some tyranny involved and it starts with violations of human rights. This is something which must be guarded. Good people don't speak out and that enables dictators to rise to power.

Coming back to bombing Third Reich: I had a German fellow - older guy I used to climb with on sandstone cliffs near Dresden. He was 14 at the time of big raid and once I asked about how it was. It was peculiar that he wasn't able to speak about it even 40 years later. Even if he tried he wasn't able to give me more than 2 sentences and then it was over. He apologised but simply couldn't say a word, he lived directly in downtown Dresden in 1945.

SCAFITE

18th Feb 2013, 16:38

I have recently been reading a number of books on Bomber Command, Bomber Boys Patrick Bishop, The Doomed Youth of Bomber Command, and Battle for Hamburg and the Nuremberg Raid both by Martin Middlebrook.

What comes across is that Harris was insubordinate against the directive of higher command once his popularity among the British press and public had grown. After the Battle of the Ruhr higher directive was to go for aircraft, tank and gun factories, plus Oil production in the run up to D Day. Harris convinced Portal and Churchill that he could win the war by flattening Berlin at the cost of 400 to 500 Aircraft. By March 1944 he had loss over a 1,000 Bombers and crews plus a similar number so badly damaged they would not fly again, in the meantime German production of weapons peaked in late 1943 early 1944.

Remember in late 1943 the USAAF had been almost withdrawn from the Battle having been shot out of the skies in the late summer of 1943, leaving only Bomber Command ranging over Germany. Yes raids were made against other targets but the main focus was Berlin, and it was knocked into rubble but did not stop theGerman from increasing weapon production. It was at this time rumblings in the Houses of Parliament and in some press questioning the morality of area Bombing and I think that Churchill and higher RAF Command started to distance themselves from what would be coming at the end of the war.

In March 1944 after the disastrous raid on Nuremberg which we lost more RAF flyers in just over an hour than we did in the Battle of Britain, Bomber Command was given over to Supreme Allied Command and Harris was drawn into line, which he did not like, referring to the raids against other targets as raids forthe Oily Boys. It was during the period of the fall of 1943 to March 1944 that Bomber Commands losses were at their peak and they were losing the front line strength of about 800 bombers every 5 or 6 weeks.

What Bomber Command had to do during the War was a terrible act but at a time of total war. The problem was at the end of the war higher command could not face the responsibility of what they had to do to win the war, and AM Harris carried the can along with the brave men of Bomber Command.

During the release of the Film War games in the 1960s about a Nuclear attack on the UK it mentioned that we would have to shoot the worst of the wounded especially the badly burned. It also stated if you don’t think we would do that, that’s what the Germans had to do with their badly burned civilians after the Hamburg Fire raid of July 1943, where we killed about 50,000 German for the loss of 13aircraft. That was one of the reason the film was banned for a long time, as the UK Government did not think the British public wanted reminding of what we had done in the War.

It has been a sad seventy or so years for the veterans of Bomber Command and only now have we given them the Memorial and Medal they deserved, but you have to ask why it has taken so long.

Pontius Navigator

18th Feb 2013, 17:09

What comes across is that Harris was insubordinate against the directive of higher command once his popularity among the British press and public had grown

This never stopped Churchill from sacking a general.

cockney steve

18th Feb 2013, 18:03

I marvel at the bravery of those who obeyed orders to fly in ****heap antiquated aircraft which were totally outclassed.

We all tend to focus on the glory of the Lanc, Spitfire and Hurricane but what about the other dozens of underpowered, outgunned,poor-handling types?
I was privileged to know a Recce pilot ( E J MILNE DFC ) who claimed that the American Mustang (his ride) was streets ahead and being unarmed didn't matter 'cos he could outrun anything else in the air!
the heirarchy who sent these brave fellows to almost certain death, are the ones who should not rest easy in their graves.

"the right tactic" has nothing to do with it. it was used by the winning side and wasthe correct course of action. Harris was strong enough to pick up a very s**tty stick and use it to beat our enemies into submission.
a resolute and professional military man, undoubtedly....the bravery was the perogative of those beneath him .

DC10RealMan

18th Feb 2013, 18:34

I help to run an Air Cadet course at RAF Linton-on-Ouse during the winter period.

The cadets are Senior Cadets who are between 17-23 and I take the opportunity to walk around the station with them, explaining the history of the wartime station and that they are walking in the footsteps of the Heroes of RAF Bomber Command.

They become acutely aware that the young airmen of Bomber Command were the same age as themselves when serving on operations, a fact which many of them find astonishing.

I would also add that there seems no difference between them and the young men and women who saved this country in the hour of its greatest peril.

Danny42C

18th Feb 2013, 18:36

Probably I am the oldest survivor from those days, but even I have little to add to what has been said. It may well be that Harris exceeded his authority on occasion. He would not have been the first Commander to do so, and he will not be the last. If it turns out well, Authority will take all the credit. If it goes wrong - you're on your own, mate !

As I have mentioned before, the (anticipated) effect of "area" bombing on civilian morale was as big a factor in the minds of the war planners as the material destruction involved. It is not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, but the size of the fight in the dog. Hitler thought he could "break" our morale, he didn't. We thought we could break the German civilian morale, we didn't.

But that was no reason why he - or we - would not try. If you want to (or are forced to) fight global war, you must desire the end (victory), and you must desire all the means you can lay your hands on to get it - many of these will not be pretty. Nice guys don't win wars.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" (as Harry Truman memorably observed).

D.

BEagle

18th Feb 2013, 19:13

Notwithstanding the contemporary standards, one can only but wonder whether, to use the Cold War nuclear vernacular, counterforce rather than countervalue targetting would have yielded a more expeditious end to the war in Europe.

By the way, how many of you brave keyboard warriors have actually been to Dresden and spoken to any of the present generation?

Or visited the restored Frauenkirche, completed in 2005 and explained why you felt it was necessary to raze it.....

On 13 February 1945, Anglo-American allied forces began the bombing of Dresden. The Frauenkirche withstood two days and nights of the attacks and the eight interior sandstone pillars supporting the large dome held up long enough for the evacuation of 300 people who had sought shelter in the church crypt, before succumbing to the heat generated by some 650000 incendiary bombs that were dropped on the city. The temperature surrounding and inside the church eventually reached 1000 degrees Celsius. The dome finally collapsed at 1000 on 15 February. The pillars glowed bright red and exploded; the outer walls shattered and nearly 6000 tons of stone plunged to earth, penetrating the massive floor as it fell.

If there were indeed essential military targets in Dresden which required such a counterforce strike, then please would someone elucidate. Because all I've read in this thread so far is general comment about the wartime bravery of Bomber Command crews, which is, of course, indesputable.

However, I do remain to be convinced about the destruction of Dresden, but would be so if someone can provide sufficient evidence to justify the action.

The bombing of Dresden was also used by the Soviets, in the early Cold War period, as propaganda about Western heartlessness and cruelty - they even left much of the rubble from 1945 untouched in order to illustrate their case.

Mike7777777

18th Feb 2013, 19:27

Churchill's failure to support Harris post-Dresden was unforgivable. Harris was a single-minded fighting man with one objective: destroy Germany, Churchill was a career politician. But what a politician Harris could have been!

Although dealt with ad infinitum in previous_PPrune, the usual myths still reappear. With no wish to enter into debates to cover old ground:

I) Primary purpose of the raids on Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate Western air power to the Soviets. Military significance was immaterial.

2) Re: the war on the Eastern Front, the Red Army needed no assistance from the West to stop the Wehrmacht at Moscow, minimal assistance provided by the West prior to victory at Stalingrad. If Britain fell in 1940 then the Red Army still rolls into Berlin, perhaps 1947, and then onto Calais. Why? A clue: in 1942, T34 tank production was c12,000, total German tank production c6,000.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of Bomber Command during 1939 - 1945 was to ensure that the Red Army advanced no further after May 1945?

There are two golden rules for aspiring European dictators: avoid a war on two fronts, don't invade Russia (copyright N. Bonaparte)

cuefaye

18th Feb 2013, 20:55

Most of our leading politicians, some of them children of the CND, are barely old enough to have understood the Cold War; certainly not old enough to have been dismayed by news of the crushing of the Prague
Spring.

So very telling. They seem to have skipped a generation or three. I hope that their Eton successors are a wiser lot, for the sake of my great-grandchildren!

Genstabler

18th Feb 2013, 21:51

Mike7777777

Your golden rules are similar to those taught to Army officers who aspire to high rank, but there are three:
1. Avoid war on two fronts.
2. Never invade Russia.
3. On no account ever entrust your baggage to RAF movers.

DC10RealMan

18th Feb 2013, 23:01

I have been to Dresden "The Florence on the Elbe" and one of the few cities in the world that truly lives up to its reputation and I have also attended a Handel concert in the Frauenkirche.

I have also helped to recover the remains of Soviet soldiers in the fields outside the city of Stalingrad (Volgograd) on a number of occasions recently and I have stood on the banks of the River Volga to which the German Army pushed the Red Army to within 100 meters and looked across to the eastern bank which geographically is part of Asia.

At one time the Nazis held an empire which spanned from Brittany to the gates of Asia.

Dresden was one of three cities earmarked for destruction together with Chemnitz and Berlin as part of Operation Thunderclap to help the Red Army in its offensive to capture Berlin and at the direct request of the Soviet High Command and with the approval of Marshal Stalin.

Chugalug2

19th Feb 2013, 08:45

Beagle, the preoccupation in 1945 was to end the war ASAP. Every day that murderous Nazi clique was in power was a day in which many more of all nationalities and races (especially the Jews) were to face violent and ignominious ends. Also by then the city smashing machine that was Main Force was honed to maximum effectiveness. Throw into that maelstrom the almost perfect conditions in terms of a disorganised and disrupted Air Defence system and you end up with the terrible cost to Dresden and those within it that you describe. To be honest wringing ones hands over the destruction of a particular building, albeit a historical and sacred one, shows a lofty disregard for all who perished there and elsewhere on all sides and throughout the world in that appalling conflict. 100 million in round figures i believe, so we concentrate on the fate uf three cities, two in Japan and one in Germany? Hogwash!
Fight to win and win as soon as possible. oh and all the rules that Genstabler listed.

Pontius Navigator

19th Feb 2013, 09:19

BEagle, you may have a point about counter-force compared with counter-value, but I recall various targets that were supposedly counter-force, or would have been so claimed at the subsequent war-crimes trials in Rio or wherever. "The target it the HQ of the Western TVD," that the HQ was essentially an administrative centre, would have been vacated early in the conflict, and was the centre of a large city was brushed aside.

The problem with a counter-force strategy early in the war would have suffered from two main drawbacks - lack of assets to effect that strategy and lack of target concentration to deliver the blow.

Attacks on German naval units - Tirpitz and the submarine pens, on the rocket launch sites and Peenemunde - were all counter-force. Attacks on oil production and ball-bearing production were 'panacea' targets. Attacks on viaducts and the railway system were valid interdiction targets.

Harris would, I suggest, have asserted that attacks on cities in the Ruhr were indeed counter-force with attacks on Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden similarly attributed much as we would have claimed for Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev.

In the other direction London and Lincoln could have been claimed as counter-force, or collateral damage whereas Birmingham was your atypical counter-value target.

Krautwald

19th Feb 2013, 14:15

I always wondered if it is true that many raids where not aimed against factories, harbours, train stations, bridges or whatever important stuff, but deliberately against densely populated working-class neighborhoods? I have been told so a couple times but never bothered to find out if this actually was so.

I also think that one has to differ between guilt in terms of inexcuseable decisions, and the kind of guilt you experience when you where in a hopeless situation and had to do something awful. Even if there where reasons for doing things in a certain way, it doesn´t mean that you will be unaffected knowing that you killed hundreds of people, most of them being old, women, children...however, that is something you should leave to the people involved. It is not for later generations to judge here.

Then there are those (sadly increasing in numbers) liberals who shout the loudest and hide under the umbrella of political correctness, gay rights, equality and diversity agendas etc.. who I personally think have done more damage to this country than Hitler ever could

Well, I guess Hitler would have dealt with gays, pc and liberals to your full satisfaction. :rolleyes:

DC10RealMan

20th Feb 2013, 07:24

You have to remember that specific targeting of buildings, bridges, etc, is a relatively recent technological development and certainly not the norm in the 1940s.

In 1942 Mr Butt, a senior civil servant published a report that said 90% of bombs dropped by RAF Bomber Command on raids in Germany were being dropped in excess of 5 miles from a specific aiming point.

There were special raids such as Augsburg, Le Crusot, Dams Raid, Peenemunde that were able to pinpoint targets but these were the exception rather than the rule, for example Augsburg was in daylight and the Dams Raid in full moonlight with attendant high losses.

Many areas of industrial plant were in working class areas such as the Hamburg U-boat pens but there was part of the bombing directive issued to C in C Harris which said that the bombing offensives was also directed "At the morale of the industrial workers"

Wander00

20th Feb 2013, 07:40

Wasn't there a fourth principle

"Never invade Afghanistan"....

I'll get my coat......................

Chugalug2

20th Feb 2013, 08:58

DC10RM:-
In 1942 Mr Butt, a senior civil servant published a report that said 90% of bombs dropped by RAF Bomber Command on raids in Germany were being dropped in excess of 5 miles from a specific aiming point.

That is the nub of the issue. Bomber Command attacked at night to avoid the suicidal loss rate of when they attacked by day. The only targets that could be predictably hit by night were cities. Each Navigator had to find that city himself, there was little or no sign of the hundreds of other aircraft bent on doing the same thing. Distractions such as cloud cover, winds contrary to expected, flak, night fighters, dummy fires laid in open countryside, and above all inexperience, reduced the chances of even doing that. Air superiority was at the core of the problem, the USAAF achieved it locally with the amazing Mustang. Bomber Command had to wait for the final months of the war to do so in the Reich skies. Harris hit cities because he could, and like any good commander put fire into the bellies of his Old Lags before sending them out night after night. There were indeed other targets such have been mentioned like Peenemunde that could be equally hit, but then the activities carried out in such places were dispersed (underground in that case). The only targets that could be hit systematically, continually, and effectively were cities that contained their own sub targets, railways, factories, and of course workers. The mayhem caused to the Nazi conduct of the war was immense and telling, testimony of which was given by that suave War Criminal, Albert Speer, Hitler's Minister of Armaments and War Production 1942/45.

Pontius Navigator

20th Feb 2013, 09:07

I always wondered if it is true that many raids where not aimed against factories, harbours, train stations, bridges or whatever important stuff, but deliberately against densely populated working-class neighborhoods?

You need to study the development of cities in the industrial revolution era. Industry required a greater concentration of workers than an agrarian economy. The workers also needed to get to the factories and until the advent of cheap public transport would need to walk or cycle. As a consequence cheap housing would be concentrated around the factories. While the working classes might be closest their managers etc would not be too far from the centre either.

As DC10 showed us,

In 1942 Mr Butt, a senior civil servant published a report that said 90% of bombs dropped by RAF Bomber Command on raids in Germany were being dropped in excess of 5 miles from a specific aiming point.

5 miles was a pretty good navigational accuracy for DR with some astro shots provided conditions were right - cloud cover and enemy action permitting.

Target recognition at night would be pretty much hit and miss too depending much on water features and railway lines as an aid to navigation. The Germans were well aware of this and attempted concealment much as we did with Starfish. You can see this on Google Earth historic imagery where the Alstervergnugen was covered over and a false road and rail crossing constructed further north by 600 yards. Not very much perhaps but sufficient to shift the aim away from the city centre.

cowhorse

20th Feb 2013, 09:34

What can one say - people really lost it 75 years ago. The important thing is, that this never happenes again (but it probably will ...)

thegypsy

20th Feb 2013, 12:54

How was it the Germans managed to find out cities like Coventry, Southampton,Belfast,Bath etc etc at night whilst we were bombing 5 miles off target for first few years of the war?

aw ditor

20th Feb 2013, 13:09

Knickbein?

Chugalug2

20th Feb 2013, 13:38

How was it the Germans managed to find out cities like Coventry, Southampton,Belfast,Bath etc etc at night whilst we were bombing 5 miles off target for first few years of the war?
They had overrun Western Europe by then. We didn't, until much much later. Oh, and wot aw ditor said.

DC10RealMan

20th Feb 2013, 17:15

The Luftwaffe had navigational transmitters (Knickerbein or crooked leg) located in the Cherbourg Peninsula and Holland which provided navigation signals to most cities in England although the raids on Belfast were helped by navigational assistance in the form of city lighting from the neutral Irish Free State.

In the wake of the Butt Report, navigation was given the highest priority hence the development of radio aids such as Oboe which was accurate enough to be used against individual targets at night such as the raid in 1943 which destroyed much of the Krupp armaments factory in Essen, however Oboe was limited by the curvature of the earth and that is why the Oboe receivers were installed in the higher flying DH Mosquitoes which were armed with flares to mark the aiming point. Oboe had this limitation until summer 1944 when the Western Allies liberated France, Belgium, and Holland and then the Oboe transmitters could provide greater coverage to the East by being situated in those liberated countries.

In my opinion one further thing which is not appreciated by armchair critics of the Bomber campaign in the safety and security of the 21st Century is that the First World War had only been over 20 years before the start of the Second World War.
Most of the RAF Senior Officers, including Harris and Prime Minister Churchill himself had served in the trenches during that murderous conflict and who can blame them for trying new ways of fighting a war and avoiding the horrors and carnage that they had seen in the mud and blood of Flanders and France during the First World War.

Courtney Mil

20th Feb 2013, 18:27

Some excellent posts here; DC10, PN, Chug et al. Not entirely sure about the comment:

the safety and security of the 21st Century

but I do take your point in that we're not actually fighting for the nation's survival at the moment.

More good stuff, please. The memory of the Bomber Command crews needs to be defended. :ok:

dragartist

20th Feb 2013, 20:24

good explanations about finding targets in RV Jones book on secret scientific Intel during ww2. How the germans hit Coventry and how we employed countermeasures.

RV Jones was quite a chap.

I had the job of writing the names neatly in the EWAU visitors book for signatures in the 80's and 90's. RVs signature was in the book as he was a regular visitor.

He is one of the people I wish I had met along with Sir Frank Whittle.

Harris and his men were right to do what they did. Had they not done I am sure we would all be speaking German today.

Imagine what it would have been like had they been allowed to develop canned sunshine

Pontius Navigator

20th Feb 2013, 20:42

I had a little play with the maths. A Lancaster at a height of 20,000 feet en route to Hamburg would lose a G-signal from Stenigot around coast in of Holland. A Mosquito at 30,000 feet gained a further 39 miles and would lose the signal near Groningen. To get a G-line you need a signal from two stations and for a fix, 3 stations. The Dutch coast would be the absolute maximum distance.

From the Dutch coast the shortest distance would be another 156 miles for the Lancaster or around 40 minutes. If we assume a DR error of 10 nm/hr, plus an error of 2 miles on the last fix, you have an error of 8-9 miles. That can be reduced by getting a pinpoint but that would still have an error of 2 miles assuming an accurate identification.

Wind finding was pretty primitive until the advent of Doppler or a high definition radar system.

The advent of H2S would have been of huge benefit, once they were permitted to use radar over Germany. By 1944, 35 Sqn (a pathfinder sqn) F540 recorded bombing errors in the order of 400 yards. It took time to get things together.

DC10RealMan

20th Feb 2013, 22:02

I understand that the use of H2S had its own problems.

The clear delineation of coastline was easily identifiable, however over a landmass the earlier versions couldn't identify specific features to be used as a navigational aid.

Its main drawback though was that after a few weeks of use the Luftwaffe discovered its secrets in the shot down wreck of a Shorts Stirling and developed a radio aid called Naxos which they fitted to the Luftwaffe nightfighters and which homed into the transmissions of H2S resulting in increased causalities.

I once had a friend who flew a tour with RAF Bomber Command in 1943-1944 and survived, he put down his survival to the fact that they didn't have H2S fitted to their aircraft.

He also mentioned about being approached by Group Captain Hamish Mahaddie at the end of his first tour in the winter of 1943 when the casualties were at their worse. The Group Captain wanted his crew to go and undertake an immediate second tour with the Pathfinders as their operational experience was invaluable and they would receive a Pathfinder badge which would impress the girls and an "extra bob a day"

His crew barely out of their teens were all for it and the kudos it would bring, but my friend who was the old man of the crew at 25 and married with children suggested that they take the weeks leave due to them and think it over and it was never mentioned again.

He went onto say that had they accepted an immediate second tour, including the "extra bob" that they never would have survived such was the casualty rate during the Battle of Berlin in the winter of 1943-1944.

When I think of the boys of RAF Bomber Command I am reminded of the words of the American General Patton who said,

"Do not mourn these men, but just thank God that such men lived"

Caspian237

20th Feb 2013, 22:32

I remember watching a documentary, possibly from the old "The World at War" series in which Albert Speer, architect and German Minister of Armaments, was asked questions regarding the Allied bombing campaign. In his opinion the Allies had virtually opened up a new front requiring tens of thousands of people to man and support their air defence system not to mention the resources and materials that had to be committed that otherwise could have been employed against the Soviets. Also, by 1944 the Luftwaffe had virtually ended large scale involvement in the ground war with seniors such as Adolf Galland loathe to commit to anything that would detract from the air defence of Germany.

I'm not suggesting that all Germans are applauding our brilliant coup but sometimes the opinions of a one-time enemy can cut through all the political correctness, though
I've not seen the recent documentary so perhaps I'm doing the BBC a huge injustice?

DC10RealMan

20th Feb 2013, 23:02

In 1942 when the Nazis were rampaging across the Soviet Union and Marshal Stalin was clamoring for an invasion of France by the Western Allies to relieve the hard pressed Red Army Prime Minister Churchill placated him by saying that a second front had already been opened in the West by the RAF and USAAF air offensive.

I wonder if that statement encouraged the USSR to fight on as it had been feared that they might make a separate peace due to the rapid advance of the Wehrmacht.

Today if you drive from Moscow/DOM airport into the city centre you will pass a line of huge red steel tank traps in the middle of the highway and they mark the high water mark of the Wehrmachts advance.

Caspian, you are absolutely correct in your recollections of Speers comments.

cowhorse

21st Feb 2013, 07:56

While one cannot argue against majority of bombing runs over Germany and Japan, we also have to remember the instances where these bombings were pure savagery without any strategic value (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc). It is easy to get carried away by oversimplifying to whole situation.

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 08:20

Cowhorse, that is the nub of the argument and has already been covered and recovered.

Dresden was or wasn't a major transport hub with many troops in he city that night.

The atomic attacks were or weren't necessary and saved or didn't save lives or ended or didn't end the war.

You are either open to argument and logic or you hold an entrenched 21st Century position.

Vote now.

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 08:27

developed a radio aid called Naxos which they fitted to the Luftwaffe nightfighters and which homed into the transmissions of H2S resulting in increased causalities.

The all-seeing green eye can be terribly seductive. In training, even when not in use or there was nothing to see, we usually left it burning and turning. Had we gone to war we would have employed tight emcon, setting the computer to a predicted fix point, setting the radar to sector scan, switching on, fixing and to standby. At low level we may have left the radar at standby as the terrain was pretty flat unlike the terrain following practised in training.

At high level we had Fishpool, not particularly effective but worth a try once you were engaged.

During the war, did the young and inexperienced limit their use of H2S? Did they use Fishpond the whole time looking for that elusive and fleeting contact like a shooting star amongst the fixed returns from the bomber stream?

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 08:46

I wonder if that statement encouraged the USSR to fight on as it had been feared that they might make a separate peace due to the rapid advance of the Wehrmacht.

Was there ever a realistic prospect of a separate peace? True the Soviet had done just that in 1917. In WW2 Germany had only just attack Russia in 1941 having abrogated their previous Pact. In 1942 Germany was winning both in Russia and North Africa, why would they accept a separate peace except on such impossible terms that Stalin could never have accepted.

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 09:00

Cowhorse, I made neither a critical assessment nor put patriotism first. I posed simply the questions.

OTOH your statement we also have to remember the instances where these bombings were pure savagery without any strategic value

That may well be a good opening gambit for a debate but is invalid as a conclusion without debate.

cowhorse

21st Feb 2013, 09:19

Cowhorse, I made neither a critical assessment nor put patriotism first. I posed simply the questions.
It was ment as a general assertion: 'since we have done it, it is righteous'.

If we want to learn anything, we have to clean our house thoroughly: was the intention of Bomber command to hinder German industry and military apparatus (in which case there were many targets more appropriate than Dresden), or were they simply trying their hands on burning a densely populated city (like Germans during the Blitz)?

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 10:28

was the intention of Bomber command to hinder German industry and military apparatus (in which case there were many targets more appropriate than Dresden), or were they simply trying their hands on burning a densely populated city (like Germans during the Blitz)?

To tackle the second part first, was the German aim during the blitz to burn a densely populated city or was the damage to civilian housing near the docks mere collateral damage, the same as Bomber Command wrought on German cities?

And the first that there were many more appropriate targets. Undoubtedly there were many targets but were they suitable targets for a main force attack?

DC10RealMan

21st Feb 2013, 10:41

The bombing of Dresden was done as part of a general strategy (Operation Thunderclap) and at the request of the Soviet High Command to help the Red Army in its advance into Eastern Germany.

The Red Army captured Berlin and the German Government surrendered unconditionally.

QED.

cowhorse

21st Feb 2013, 10:45

But the consensus on German attack has already been reached - we all now it was a crime, but unfortunately Nuremberg trials did not touch the subject of Blitz bombings as a war crime due to the simple fact, that we did the same exact thing. And the prosecutor knew that: remember Donitz, unrestricted submarine warfare is a war crime, but they did not prosecute him for that, because again, we did the same exact thing. Isn't it a bit funny, that war crime is not a war crime any more, if we do it?

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 11:10

cowhorse:-

...these bombings were pure savagery without any strategic value (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc). It is easy to get carried away by oversimplifying to whole situation.

Good advice at the end, so why not heed it yourself? The connection between Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima isn't Strategic, it is that they are all quoted by the chattering classes rather than, for example, Berlin, Hamburg, and Tokyo, all of which arguably suffered worse. Dresden was in the way of the Red Army advance on Berlin. Stalin wanted it levelled. He was obliged. He was especially pleased because, as has been already pointed out, he left it as he found it to illustrate the "savagery" of the Allied Bombing Offensive. Pot calling Kettle black? Never mind, Berlin fell and with it the Third Reich.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were indeed Strategic Targets because their destruction with one bomb apiece ended the war in the Far East. You can't get more Strategic than that! Millions of lives saved at the cost of thousands, because the need for invasion was averted. These are the sombre balance sheets of war. If you don't like them, join the club! The greatest crime of all is war itself. It is as old as mankind and we will take it with us wherever we roam. No amount of wishful thinking or protest movements or unilateral disarmament will alter that, on the contrary such self delusion will merely encourage war.
Bomber Harris was right to use the crude cudgel he was handed in the shape of Bomber Command to the greatest extent possible. It wasn't a war winning weapon as many Air Force VSO's still believed, but it was certainly a weapon that helped win the war.
It was a close run thing for, given a few months reprieve and a victory at Kirsk, Hitler could have used some of the many high tech weapons being created by his scientists, not the least of which would have been "dirty" atomic devices aimed at New York, London, and Moscow.

cowhorse

21st Feb 2013, 11:26

The connection between Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima isn't Strategic, it
is that they are all quoted by the chattering classes rather than, for example,
Berlin, Hamburg, and Tokyo, all of which arguably suffered worse.

I only gave a couple of examples - there were many more.

He was obliged

So that's your defense? He was obliged?

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were indeed Strategic Targets because their
destruction with one bomb apiece ended the war in the Far East.

No one believes this nonsense anymore - the only reason the atomic bombs were dropped was to demonstrate the power of nuclear weapons to Soviets. Japan capitulated because the Soviets declared war on them - fire bombing campaign over Tokyo killed hell of a lot more people than atomic bombs.

It was a close run thing for, given a few months reprieve and a victory at
Kirsk, Hitler could have used some of the many high tech weapons being created
by his scientists, not the least of which would have been "dirty" atomic devices
aimed at New York, London, and Moscow.

What are you talking about: the only realistic high damage weapon of that era was an atomic bomb, and Germans weren't even close of building one.

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 11:54

I only gave a couple of examples - there were many more.
Examples of what, "savagery"?
So that's your defense? He was obliged?
Defence of what? I was stating a fact.
Japan capitulated because the Soviets declared war on them
Chicken and Egg? I believe that Japan surrendered because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the implied threat from similar devices to its remaining cities, and especially to its military forces defending the homeland. There weren't any other similar devices? Now you tell me, ah but did you tell them?
the only realistic high damage weapon of that era was an atomic bomb, and Germans weren't even close of building one.
Agreed. I'm talking about spreading irradiated material scattered by a conventional bombs in those downtown areas. Little damage to property but the same wouldn't apply to the property occupants. The challenge wasn't the bomb but the means of delivery. The challenge was almost met when Germany surrendered.

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 12:18

Without picking quotes, I firmly believed that nuclear deterrence of the 1950a and 60s was no more than the threat of wreaking similar levels of damage as 'terror' bombing of the 1940s. I use the word 'terror' advisedly.

Deterrent policy was evolved by politicians that had served through the 1940s and controlled by military commanders similarly experienced in such devastating weapons effects.

Now, nearly 70 years later, I can look back and see that such devastating attacks against a whole population is morally wrong as we now have the luxury of accurate targeting against a political and military leadership. From that viewpoint I cannot see the value of a nuclear deterrent as it would cause immense collateral damage against what is essentially an innocent civil population especially women and children.

While we would argue that our deterrence is aimed at an enemy leadership we credit them with a similar fear of destruction of civilians as we ourselves fear. As it is possible that they answer to god and not the people I fear that nuclear deterrence is now invalid.

Had World War 2 started in Europe 4-5 years ago, would we still feel the need to destroy enemy cities? To do so in retaliation would indeed be a crime against humanity but retaliation was exactly what we planned in the 60s and the world was not wholly different from the 1940s.

In the 40s it was a totally different world from the 21st Century and it is difficult if not impossible now to attribute guilt for actions then.

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 12:22

if you call Blitz a crime (and I do), then you also have to point out crimes made by Allies.
By "Blitz" I assume you mean the Strategic Bombing of Enemy Cities? Fine, call it a crime if you wish, your prerogative. You might just as well go the whole way and call war a crime as I do, for technology has lifted wars out of the tidy battle fields of yore and dumped them into everyone's back yard. If you think that is a crime, then we are agreed that war is a crime in itself. So what? Nuremberg didn't accuse the Nazi regime of the individual components of war, but of launching aggressive war in the first place. That was its crime, plus of course the Holocaust, and the deliberate flouting of its duties to POWs and subjugated civilian populations. The Allied crime would have been to let such a barbaric and inhumane regime to survive for one more day than necessary.
So Eisenhower preferred to invade Japan rather than force a surrender by use of the Atomic Bombs? I had no idea...

Thelma Viaduct

21st Feb 2013, 12:30

Mansun - Harris - YouTube

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 13:38

PP, thanks, though it would have been more informative for old gits like me if you'd posted the lyrics. No matter, the wonder of the web produced this, hope it's right:-

On my estate was a man with a flag in his yard,
And the country deluded him,
He toed the establishment line.

Like a statue Harris smiled,
Stood and smiled,
Harris smiled.

Harris smiles,
Harris stares,
The world goes by,
He stood and died,
Harris smiles,
Harris died.

Lancaster bombers are rusting in sheds in our land,
While in Parliament square there's a man,
A statue in bronze,
And the statue of Harris stared,
Stood and stared,
Harris stares.

Counts himself lucky he's English and says it with pride,
As he stares at the taxis and buses,
Fumes are inside his prison,
Where he'll sit for eternity trapped as a bigoted man.

Read more at Harris Lyric Meaning - Mansun Meanings (http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858593938/#FKGtqhE4JafctFoj.99)
Not sure how all that advances the argument much, unless the flag in the yard bears the Swastika. How about that for a twist?

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 13:46

So Eisenhower preferred to invade Japan rather than force a surrender by use of the Atomic Bombs? I had no idea...

Did he?

I [Eisenhower] was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.

Really? I would have been astonished if he had given a vigorous assent . Any thinking military commander would be negligent if he didn't have cogent reasons to question the wisdom of any courses of action. Remember too, Eisenhower was SACEUR, he had not fought a war in the Pacific.

While it was true, when MacArthur wanted to use atomic bombs against the Chinese Truman refused permission but Eisenhower didn't turn away from nuclear weapons himself when he became President.

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 14:27

PN, I think we are of a like mind, my quote in your post was sardonic. Eisenhower above all else valued his men. If there had been anyway at all of not having to launch them (if it had been his command) against the beaches of a country whose population, never mind its military, was bent on throwing them back into the sea again then I'm certain he would have taken advantage of it. As you say it wasn't his call and that invasion never happened, thank God.
As to your reflections upon the Cold War, looking back it is scarcely credible how close the world came to Armageddon. On the plus side the very nature of MAD assured West European Peace from 1945 to the present, but in any case I'm not sure we can get the genii to go back home to his bottle. War Gasses were available to all sides in WWII but, with the typical exception of the Japanese, were not used. Why? Because of its own brand of MAD. That is the best we can hope for I'm afraid. We used precision smart weapons against the regime in Iraq, but it still evaded them mainly by not obligingly staying in the bunkers that we targeted, especially Saddam himself. We started WWII by bombing the Germans with paper at night and their Army with bombs by day. The first merely provided auxiliary hygienic assistance to the enemy, the latter cost us the flower of our youth. Thereafter the technology held sway and dictated what we did and how we did it. A similar opposed conflict in the future will go much the same way, I suspect

Pontius Navigator

21st Feb 2013, 15:29

The potential for political diplomacy was limited. The Russians were our allies and could not therefore be seen as impartial mediators to broker a deal. Would you have trusted Stalin?

The leaders of the Allied powers met at Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945, . . . to plan the final campaign against Japan. . . . Clement Attlee replaced Winston Churchill . . . The first declaration issued by the conferees was the "unconditional surrender" ultimatum presented to Japan on July 26. . . . On July 29 the Japanese cabinet decided to make no immediate comment on the ultimatum, but press reports of their decision indicated to Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they had "ignored" it. This note of defiance, which may actually have been unintended, led to the decision in Washington to use the bombs.

Japan was on its knees: it was effectively blocked by the USN, nothing came in, nothing went out. The Japanese cities were a pile of rubble.

Really? They still occupied huge swathes of Asia so although the USN and allied Navies were indeed blockading the main land they were still undefeated in the field much the same as the German Army in WW1.

The Armistice in WW1 was a causus belli for WW2. Had Japan been forced into a conditional surrender there would have been every possibility of the same outcome in Japan 20 years later.

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 15:43

Just as Dresden was part of Thunderclap, which in turn was part of facilitating the advance of the Red Army to take Berlin, which was the prerequisite to the Unconditional Surrender of Nazi Germany, thus it was with the Japanese.To have offered that brutal murderous regime anymore accommodation than the Nazis would have been madness. They had to accept the same stark choice, fight on or unconditionally surrender. It was the regime that had to go, the Empire was gone already to all intents and purposes. The common factor was of course the Emperor. What was done was done in his name. His only act of redemption was his broadcast to his people ordering them to submit. Thus he survived while some of his government were convicted and hung for the same war crimes as their Axis partners. I make no comment other than to point out that surviving British POWs turned their backs on their Sovereign because she happened to be sharing a carriage with the Japanese Emperor, who was making a State visit. That may just seem like bad manners. That generation didn't do bad manners. Diplomacy? You have to be joking!

PeregrineW

21st Feb 2013, 19:02

All of the points that I would like to make in respect of the "war crimes" committed by Bomber Command have already been made by Chugalug and others, and far more eloquently than I could hope to. Also, my grasp of the finer points of history is insufficient to allow me to do much more than state my opinion, which is that the men and women of Bomber Command were heroes; at the very least, they stopped the war from being lost whilst others trained and fought to put the Allies in a position from which it could be won.

On Monday, I paid my first visit to the Bomber Command Memorial in Green Park. I stood there, in awe of the 55,573 who gave their lives, and the many, many others who were lucky enough to survive. I thought of two people in particular; my mother, who served as a WAAF bomb trolley driver on a Mosquito unit. I don't know whether that qualified her as a fully paid up member of Bomber Command, but she certainly played her part.

I thought, also, of a man with whom I had the very great honour to have a conversation quite recently. He flew as an Observer in a Pathfinder Mosquito squadron. Aged 19 when he first gained his brevet, he took part in raid upon raid, including Dresden. He finished his RAF career as a Group Captain. When we had finished talking, I felt awed...the very thought of this man and his colleagues being described as a war criminal makes me fume.

Alternative opinions are, of course, allowed to be held and expressed; that was what was being fought for, after all. Doesn't stop them being PC drivel, though.

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2013, 19:30

Well said, PW :D
You might have said:-
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
but I prefer your version:-
Alternative opinions are, of course, allowed to be held and expressed; that was what was being fought for, after all. Doesn't stop them being PC drivel, though
Especially remembering that those 55573 men of whom you speak died so that people would be free to spout that PC drivel...

Juan Tugoh

21st Feb 2013, 21:29

Had World War 2 started in Europe 4-5 years ago, would we still feel the need to destroy enemy cities?

Let us remember that Bomber Command originally started out trying to bomb military targets. With the Butt Report's findings a new way of hitting back and damaging the enemies ability to wage war with the tools available had to be found. It was, and it was only then that Area Bombing started.

Genstabler

21st Feb 2013, 22:00

Excuse me! The major component of our defence capability, and that of most of the major and quite a few minor world players, is the ability effectively to deploy nuclear weapons against any potential enemy. Area bombing? Chicken feed by comparison.

glojo

13th Mar 2013, 17:20

Anger, anger, rage, fuming...

To all those that dare act as judge and jury.
How dare ANYONE criticise men that willingly volunteered to take the war to an enemy that was threatening to invade our country.

Grrr.. How dare you, I am fuming.

These men knew the risks, they would see the empty bunks that would indicate another missing soul and yet day in, day out these brave men risked their lives just so some 60 or 70 years later some holier than thou armchair critics can come here and act as a so called judge and jury. How dare they!!

I will stand first in line to exchange banter with the Junior Service but I will also be at the front of the queue when it comes to commending those brave men for risking their lives just so we could have this freedom of speech which some folks seem to take so much for granted.

As has been said by other posters, war is ugly and sadly folks get killed.

Is the reality that factories make bombs, tanks, aircraft, munitions, etc etc? and yes they also produce first aid equipment (which we could argue helps to restore back to health those that have been injured)

Factories usually employed those that might not be able to fight but these factories produced everything that is needed to fight a war. Take out the factories, take out the emplyees and you then take out the much needed replacement equipment that is needed to fight a war. Are those that make the bombs non combatants, should they be allowed to go about their business and make as many and as much munitions as they want? If sadly children are employed in these factories should we refuse to bomb them?

It could be argued the Germans had by far the better equipment but they lacked numbers, they lacked the replacement aircraft, the tanks, guns and munitions required to carry on with the insane killing and why did they lack these items?

Grow up and accept war is a bitch :\:\:\

To be the commander that gives the orders to bomb these locations in the full knowledge of how well those places were defended could not have ben easy.

To see the casualty figures that would come in each day after these men had complied with your orders must have been stomach churning and I for one cannot begin to imagine how this man coped with this awful responsibility but cope he did and thanks to the way he carried out his orders we conquered the evil tyrants that committed such awful atrocities. Please do not think for one minute I am of the opinion that the war was won solely by the actions of Bomber Command, I am certainly not suggesting that but I am saying lives were saved by the actions, by the sacrifice of these exceeding brave men who volunteered for one of the most dangerous occupations of that war.
Go stand in the naughty boys corner and do not come out until you can say something sensible..