Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris - Butch or Butcher?
Thread Starter
Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris - Butch or Butcher?
In his BBC TV series The Making of Modern Britain, Andrew Marr last night referred to ACM Sir Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris with the alternative moniker ‘Butcher’. I’d always thought the nickname coined for him by his men in Bomber Command was actually ‘Butch’ – which, in the 1940s, didn’t have the connotations it has today, but simply meant vigorous or forceful.
So, is the pejorative ‘Butcher’ label wrong? I recall Bomber Command veterans a few years back complaining about a Canadian TV documentary that had played on it to discredit Harris and the RAF bombing campaign: they insisted he had simply been known to them, respectfully, as ‘Butch’.
Can any ex-Bomber Command folks confirm the facts?
So, is the pejorative ‘Butcher’ label wrong? I recall Bomber Command veterans a few years back complaining about a Canadian TV documentary that had played on it to discredit Harris and the RAF bombing campaign: they insisted he had simply been known to them, respectfully, as ‘Butch’.
Can any ex-Bomber Command folks confirm the facts?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastbourne, UK
Age: 99
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Arthur Harris
In those days being 'Butch' was a description of a person who was very forthright and didn't stand for any nonsense, which describes Sir Arthur quite accurately. 'Butcher' was never used.
Thread Starter
'Butcher' was never used.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yer man Marr irritated me as well. He also made a point of referring to area bombing as "terror bombing". This link supports my memory of the great man's life and times;
http://da.mod.uk/defac/colleges/jscs...isInternet.pdf
I think "Bert" was a common name for any Harris in those times; certainly in the Merchant Navy. Some famous turn-of-the-century bike racing champion, I think.
http://da.mod.uk/defac/colleges/jscs...isInternet.pdf
I think "Bert" was a common name for any Harris in those times; certainly in the Merchant Navy. Some famous turn-of-the-century bike racing champion, I think.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An example of the touchy-feely huggy-fluffs putting a new spin upon history. The Germans engaged in total war and received like for like. There were no "Smart Bombs" in the 1940s and the objective wasn't to terrorise (unlike the Stuka with its siren) but to destroy the German capacity to make war by destroying its industrial and communications infrastructure. There is no doubt that had a nuclear weapon been available to us in 1943 it would have been used and would have saved even more lives than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And no, thats not a misprint. Bringing the war to an earlier conclusion than would otherwise be the case is/was a means of saving lives - on both sides.
That the bombing campaign went on as long as it did was the responsibility of the German High Command not "Bomber " Harris.
And no, thats not a misprint. Bringing the war to an earlier conclusion than would otherwise be the case is/was a means of saving lives - on both sides.
That the bombing campaign went on as long as it did was the responsibility of the German High Command not "Bomber " Harris.
Marr's use of the phrase "terror bombing" infuriated me. That's the terminology used by the Nazis' propaganda machine, along with describing RAF aircrew as "terror flyers".
Absolutely pathetic application of today's "values" into a situation which soft-left types like Marr (or indeed anyone of us who didn't have to live through the war) can have no real comprehension off. Hindsight allows everyone to be an expert.
The entire series looked at recent British history through the prism of the anti-empire, left-biased "liberal" media person. God help us if it's that viewpoint which the next generation learns its history from.
Sorry, my mistake . . . . it already does.
Absolutely pathetic application of today's "values" into a situation which soft-left types like Marr (or indeed anyone of us who didn't have to live through the war) can have no real comprehension off. Hindsight allows everyone to be an expert.
The entire series looked at recent British history through the prism of the anti-empire, left-biased "liberal" media person. God help us if it's that viewpoint which the next generation learns its history from.
Sorry, my mistake . . . . it already does.
There was very little in the early years of the war that Britain could do to show that it could continue the fight against the evil Nazis.
There were still a lot of people in Britain and around the world who thought it would be best to cut the losses and try to work on some compromise with the evil Nazis.
There was a sizeable minority that thought that the Jews (and anyone the Nazis didn't like) would just have to suffer and make do.
Some people didn't agree with this view and realised the evil Nazis could not be placated, compromised with - indeed they intended to dominate by power as much of the globe as they could and in the process kill anyone that got in their way or they just didn't like.
In the absence of any other significant means to win the war bombing the opposition - the Nazis was considered a suitable, realistic and acceptable target. There was still the feeling early in the war that bombing would create such misery in the German population they would overthrow the Nazis or specifically Hitler and his mates.
Plus of course the moral of the British needed to be kept up AND the British had to prove they were not beaten. Winston and his mate in the US thus got themselves a lend lease deal on bombers.
But it was found that accurate bombing was not going to happen because the technology didn't exist. That plus the need to keep British moral up and the feeling that German morale could be beaten down meant area bombing.
We also had to show the Soviets that we were going to support them.
So a bomber command leader was needed who would single mindedly focus on this task. Though of course he would know it would cost many crew and kill many civilians.
So because for years people had tried to placate and accommodate Hitler, because no one wanted another war...Bomber Harris got called nasty names.
And then when the war was coming to an end people said 'Did we really have to do all that?' And then Mr. Harris and all his crews were not given respect because it was 'difficult' but people had forgotten why it had had to be that way.
Anything that doesn't specifically target and hit a military target could be called a 'terror' attack. What we should know (borne out from WW1, WW2 and the most recent examples...) now is that 'terror bombing' does not work to achieve the desired aim. In fact it does the opposite.
There were still a lot of people in Britain and around the world who thought it would be best to cut the losses and try to work on some compromise with the evil Nazis.
There was a sizeable minority that thought that the Jews (and anyone the Nazis didn't like) would just have to suffer and make do.
Some people didn't agree with this view and realised the evil Nazis could not be placated, compromised with - indeed they intended to dominate by power as much of the globe as they could and in the process kill anyone that got in their way or they just didn't like.
In the absence of any other significant means to win the war bombing the opposition - the Nazis was considered a suitable, realistic and acceptable target. There was still the feeling early in the war that bombing would create such misery in the German population they would overthrow the Nazis or specifically Hitler and his mates.
Plus of course the moral of the British needed to be kept up AND the British had to prove they were not beaten. Winston and his mate in the US thus got themselves a lend lease deal on bombers.
But it was found that accurate bombing was not going to happen because the technology didn't exist. That plus the need to keep British moral up and the feeling that German morale could be beaten down meant area bombing.
We also had to show the Soviets that we were going to support them.
So a bomber command leader was needed who would single mindedly focus on this task. Though of course he would know it would cost many crew and kill many civilians.
So because for years people had tried to placate and accommodate Hitler, because no one wanted another war...Bomber Harris got called nasty names.
And then when the war was coming to an end people said 'Did we really have to do all that?' And then Mr. Harris and all his crews were not given respect because it was 'difficult' but people had forgotten why it had had to be that way.
Anything that doesn't specifically target and hit a military target could be called a 'terror' attack. What we should know (borne out from WW1, WW2 and the most recent examples...) now is that 'terror bombing' does not work to achieve the desired aim. In fact it does the opposite.
Last edited by Load Toad; 7th Dec 2009 at 03:44.
Dont take Andrew Marr's programme too seriously, the whole series was "history lite" aimed at an audience with only the vaguest grasp of the major events of the 20th Century. Marr took every opportunity to dress up in silly outfits and attempted probably the worst Churchill impression I have ever heard! In his defence he did imply that the Germans started the ball rolling with their bombing of Coventry, but a 60 minute gallop through WW2 was never going to offer anything but the briefest snapshots of the major events.
Harris's reputation has stood up to far more rigorous examination than anything Marr could ever offer, so those of us on here who, like me, understand the huge task which Harris and Bomber Command faced, can treat Marr's casual misuse of Harris's nickname with the contempt it deserves.
Harris's reputation has stood up to far more rigorous examination than anything Marr could ever offer, so those of us on here who, like me, understand the huge task which Harris and Bomber Command faced, can treat Marr's casual misuse of Harris's nickname with the contempt it deserves.
Thread Starter
...the whole series was "history lite" aimed at an audience with only the vaguest grasp of the major events of the 20th Century.
The series was called "The Making of Modern Britain". What exactly did the impact of the so-called "terror bombing" on Germany (and the Dresden raid in particular) have to do with that? The bravery of the Bomber Command aircrew in the face of massive losses is certainly worth noting in said series, but the bomber offensive's impact on the Germany population?
What's the relevance?
It just smacks of Marr making his own pathetic little point. There is no rigourous editorial control within the BBC to challenge that item's relevance, as the BBC is staffed by the likes of Marr, and holds broadly similar views.
What's the relevance?
It just smacks of Marr making his own pathetic little point. There is no rigourous editorial control within the BBC to challenge that item's relevance, as the BBC is staffed by the likes of Marr, and holds broadly similar views.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This subject has been aired time and again. It always goes round in circles and I think the matter in this one has probably run its course. However, I will leave it for a couple of more days.
Incidentally,it is worth noting that for years, decade upon decade, it was proffered more times than anything else to do with the allied bombing, that Dresden suffered most with deaths figuring towards 100,000.
Dresden itself, issued the real figures about two years ago to be around 25,000 killed. Very much lower than those above. Still too many, of course, but London suffered more killed than Dresden did! Some 32,000.
That is war, as they say.
Incidentally,it is worth noting that for years, decade upon decade, it was proffered more times than anything else to do with the allied bombing, that Dresden suffered most with deaths figuring towards 100,000.
Dresden itself, issued the real figures about two years ago to be around 25,000 killed. Very much lower than those above. Still too many, of course, but London suffered more killed than Dresden did! Some 32,000.
That is war, as they say.
Sam Wollaston in the Grauniad today
Made my point for me, I think (see above).
I wish my school history lessons had been more like Andrew Marr's The Making of Modern Britain (BBC2). It's not just his energy, his animated bounding about, his willingness to get involved, play soldiers, do a (not very good) Churchill impression, that makes it so engaging. It's also the way he mixes in little stories with the big ones. So along with D-Day, we learn about the imprisoned Italians and Austrians who made a little pocket of European culture on the Isle of Man. He gives it a humanness that makes it mean so much more. And now that's it, the second world war done, modern Britain made, end of the lesson. Boo.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: southeast
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK's area bombing srategy was the brainchild of Sir Charles Portal and Winston Churchill (with the backing of the Chiefs of air staff etc). Arthur Harris merely pursued this strategy with ruthless efficiency. When, towards the end of the war and in it's immediate aftermath, it became apparent that public opinion was rapidly starting to question area bombing on moral grounds, Churchill and Portal rapidly distanced themselves from this most unsavoury aspect of 'total war' and tried (v successfully) to make Harris out as the public scapegoat. Hence the lack of a Bomber Command Campaign Medal (which to this day is a national disgrace and a most obvious insult to the bravery of the bomber boys whose courage has never been surpassed IMHO) and the continuing antipathy to Harris, the crews, and all they stand/stood for. Disgraceful, in the same league of treachery as the userping of Dowding and Park by Sholto-Douglas and Leigh-Mallory......
Hence the lack of a Bomber Command Campaign Medal (which to this day is a national disgrace and a most obvious insult to the bravery of the bomber boys whose courage has never been surpassed IMHO)
The exception was the Aircrew Europe Star, which was only awarded to aircrew who had flown operationally over Europe from the beginning of the war up until D-Day. Whilst many Fighter Command aircrew were awarded this star, the vast majority of recipients were quite naturally members of RAF Bomber Command. Far from being denied a medal, Bomber Command aircrew were among the few recipients of an award specific to their role, rather than the theatre awards given to all others. There was, for example, no particular medal given to the submarine service, the airborne forces, commandos, or to many others who could claim that their services were particularly deserving of mention - they received the same campaign star as all others in their theatre. Indeed in Europe, those fighting in the BEF in France up to the time of Dunkirk received no award, whilst those flying over them were qualifying for the Aircrew Europe Star.
I never know where this story comes from, but it is continually repeated by those not in possession of the facts. Bomber Command were not insulted in this way. Their exploits may well have been subject to grossly unfair comment in the post war years it is true, but in the matter of medals they were certainly not slighted - quite the opposite some might say.
Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 3rd Dec 2009 at 20:21.
Thread Starter
Butch or Butcher?
Ref my first post atop this thread, I've contacted Andrew Marr and will report any reply - but don't hold your breath...
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,093
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
famous turn-of-the-century bike racing champion
http://www.wheelers.org/club_history...uary_times.pdf
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The campaign to raise money to fund the Bomber Command Memorial is well established and is two thirds of the way to the target of £3m. This is a very worthy cause and I hope that many more people will support it.
And your point is?
If you are referring to the recently awarded clasp awarded to those who served on Arctic convoys I would admit that this might create a precedent for a similar Bomber Command clasp on the Aircrew Europe Star. However as around 80 - 90% of the recipients of this star were Bomber Command Aircrew, this seems a fairly pointless exercise. Personally I have always thought that once you start down this slippery slope you will get all sorts of special interest groups pleading their own case, until veterans resemble those heavily laden retired Russians you see who can hardly stand up as a result of the hardware weighing them down
Russian and American War Veterans at the Central Museum of Armed Forces in Moscow
If you are referring to the recently awarded clasp awarded to those who served on Arctic convoys I would admit that this might create a precedent for a similar Bomber Command clasp on the Aircrew Europe Star. However as around 80 - 90% of the recipients of this star were Bomber Command Aircrew, this seems a fairly pointless exercise. Personally I have always thought that once you start down this slippery slope you will get all sorts of special interest groups pleading their own case, until veterans resemble those heavily laden retired Russians you see who can hardly stand up as a result of the hardware weighing them down
Russian and American War Veterans at the Central Museum of Armed Forces in Moscow