|
Personally I don't like the man Marr-I don't like his politics and I don't like the face and flappy ears.He does tell a good story though-but whether its true or no largely generally depends on where it fits in the marrpolitosphere-ie you sometimes have to take it with a large pinch of salt-sometimes outrageous lies are heard to spout from that ugly gob, entertaining to some, though it may.
Of course others can and do find him downright offensive. Anyone who has been quoted as repeating the old dogma "if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it" -has to be taken with great caution. In regard to Harris, I personally believe he took air power way beyond the importance it had.Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware the essential nature of air supremacy-but to think that it alone could win the war for you-was fundamentally flawed.Repercussions were that places like Dresden-obliterated at the war's end with no real military value, ensuring the mass cremations of thousands of civilians-was an absolute catastrophe. Lastly back to la Marr-any man who resorts to the courts and injunctions to prevent the public knowing a part of his family life that he'd prefer them not to know-says a lot about the essential nature of a man I could never trust. |
I think it is often assumed that area bombing was Harris's idea but he was simply appointed to carry it out.
|
So, will Bomber Harris get the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square?
|
My goodness wouldnt that be good. It would certainly put the cat among the pigeons (if there any left there after Ken tried to have them exterminated!). Personally I'm not holding my breath though.
|
Have to say I grunted in the armchair (as Milady Teeters says I increasingly do) at the "Butcher" error ....
But then Marr also used film of Stukas to illustrate the bombing of Liverpool! Enormous drop tanks or AAR d'ye think?:ugh: |
POP,
It is true that last year a group of German historians put the actual figure of the dead in Dresden as between 18.000 to 25.000. It should also be pointed out that after the bombing the authorities in Dresden also put the figure as around 20 - 25.000. However, Goebbels and the Reich propoganda ministry decided that it would paint the Allies in a worse light if the figure was increased to 100.000 dead. It often appears that he was right, especially amongst the the huggy fluffy crowd. |
Bomber Command Memorial
Tony Rennell wrote an article in the Daily Mail dated 14th February 2004 where he put to rights the myths about Dresden. "It had a vital role in the final military manoeuvrings of the war on the Eastern front........Dresden records were accessible.......people of Dresden were kidding themselves about their city's peaceful nature........it housed 127 factories....switched to war work.....Zeiss, camera makers, made bombaiming apparatus and time fuses......typewriter and sewing machine factories were turning out armaments......waffle and marzipan factories were making torpedo parts.....an arts and craft workshop was producing wooden tail assemblies for V1 flying bombs, machine guns, searchlights, ,aircraft parts, field telephones and two-way radios....peaceful Dresden was a war factory and a fortress......and a vital link in the German rail network"
|
Read Frederick Taylor's book: Dresden. It's very persuasive and, most importantly, well researched history.
|
I think it's Taylor's book that claims that the loss of life in Dresden was exaggerated by the East German authorities, as part of Cold War propaganda. People know about Dresden and Hiroshima, not Hamburg and Tokyo, which were more destructive.
From what I've read, the British authorities had serious qualms about area bombing, but did it because they couldn't do anything else (like frontal attacks in WW I, which the generals knew were pretty hopeless, but the army wasn't well enough trained to do anything else). The real question about Harris, I thought, was his persistence in area bombing when alternatives were available: either the diversion of aircraft to anti-submarine patrols, or a more directed targeting plan, which was possible by 1944. Perhaps a combination of theory and inter-sevice rivalry? He seems to have been pretty inflexible, which at one point was a virtue, but then, later, not so much. |
Bomber Command Memorial
We are all very comfortable in our modern society but by 1945 the majority of the people were asking ' When is it all going to end ? Over 5 years of war meant that something had to done. Dresden was still being used as staging post for troops and the people were living amongst war factories. Our equipment was better than previous years but targetting individual factories without damaging domestic properties was impossible. In warfare there will always be casualties among civilians especially if military installations are among their houses. It still happens today, even with the sophisticated weaponery available. How did we know that the war was going to end soon ? Sitting back and not doing anything was not an option.
|
"Ellingen, a small town with 1,500 inhabitants in Bavaria, was bombed by the 8th American Air Force in February 1945. An interview with the lead navigator reveals that Ellingen was selected as a "target of opportunity" simply because it had a road running through it. A few weeks later, British Bomber Command attacked Wurzburg, a medium-sized town with next to no industry of military importance. In only 20 minutes, incendiary bombs destroyed 82 per cent of the town, an even greater proportion than in Dresden.
....documents....show that once Germany's industrial centres were virtually all destroyed, Bomber Command Intelligence began to select towns initially, not for their military value, but because they were easy for the bombers to find and destroy. A briefing note by an American Air Force general shows that raids on rural places such as Ellingen also had the political purpose to deter the Germans from ever starting another war." These raids are difficult to justify nowadays and perhaps even then? |
As someone who was a youngster in London during WW2 and suffering bombing, V1 & V2 attacks, and hearing of Coventry and the Baedeker raids, the idea of German towns being bombed seemed a pretty good idea at the time. Before anyone says two wrongs don't make a right, they should try listening for a V1 engine to stop and then the long pause before the explosion.
|
Did he attend a Bristol UAS dining-in night in late '84 or early '85?
|
Bombing mistakes still occur today-but they do not involve the mass killing by the thousand-of civilians, women and children-in such a dreadful manner. But......as someone mentioned above, you have to have been involved in bombs being dropped around you, V1's with your name on the engine and V2's with anybody's name on the engine! It was not nice and you sure as hell wished every day that the RAF bombers were doing their worst for you. |
Precisely.
It's much the same as the arguments about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands war. Why did it happen? It was because there was a war on. It was total war, a nasty war and if the Germans had the capability to do it to the UK, they would have done. And they started it. |
As this has gravitated to Dresden (as these things inevitably seem to), perhaps the words of the great man himself are useful;
Page242, BOMBER OFFENSIVE, A T Harris By December of 1944 we had devastated or very seriously damaged 8o per cent of all the cities in Germany with a population,before the war, of more than 100,000; yet more cities, especially in the east of Germany, were devastated in 1945. With the German army on the frontiers of Germany we quickly set up GH and Oboe ground stations close behind the front line and this ensured the success of attacks on many distant objectives when the weather would otherwise have prevented us from finding the target. At the same time the bombers could fly with comparative safety even to targets as distant as Dresden or Chemnitz, which I had not ventured to attack before, because the enemy had lost his early warning system and the whole fighier defence of Germany could therefore generally be out-manceuvred. In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these comnmnications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany, the pre-war population was 630,000, which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance. An attack on the night of February 13th-14th by just over 8oo aircraft, bombing in two sections in order to get the night fighters dispersed and grounded before the second attack, was almost as overwhelming in its effect as the Battle of Hamburg, though the area of devastation, 1600 acres, was considerably less; there was, it appears, a fire-typhoon, and the effect on German morale, not only in Dresden but in far distant parts of the country, was extremely serious. The Americans carried out two light attacks in daylight on the next two days. I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unncessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgment was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in an earlier chapter in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole. Modern war is mechanised and dependent on industry. Arguably then, industry is a legitimate target. Industry, of course, is a civil activity. |
As an 8to 14 year old during WW2 and saw the aftermath of the bombing of Bristol, Manchester, Coventry and Bath and kept awake during the bombing of Bristol and Manchester ,and being very frightened all I can say is" Good old Sir Arthur Harris" and all the Bomber aircrew . they hit back at Germany the only way we could and it certainly kept the moral of the British People up during that time and frankly we couldn't have given a toss how many people were killed over there it was all out war with suffering on both sides .So I'm with Rotorfossil and Prune pop and all I can say to end the matter is all those people who were not born and did not suffer at that time, Harris may not have won the war but he certainly shortened it as Albert Speer the German Minister of Production said 3 more raids like Hamburg and we would have collapsed at that time our morale broken, but we didn't have the capacity to do it and the chance was lost.
|
There were surprisingly few troops left to hold Berlin so where were their men going?-they certainly weren't heading west. |
We no more knew on 12 Feb.45 that "the war was over", than we knew on 5 August 1945 that Japan was "ready to surrender". Armistice, maybe...back to 1938 borders, recoil, the better to spring... but Unconditional Surrender, Occupation, subjugation to the barbarian...oh, no. Remember Churchill's June 1940 words about (MPs and all) Brits choking on their blood as they fought the invader...remember "better dead than Red": Germans and Japanese civilians loved their Homeland just as we did/do. For them, all of their enemies, not just the Eastern one, were bad guys. They would fight on to the last kitchen knife until their own blood nourished the Motherland.
Demonising Dresden, carpet bombing generally is untutored (esp. by the Philosophy tutor Prof. A.C.Grayling, whose Down Among the Dead Cities, in every UK Public Library, holds Bomber Command aircrew to be collective war criminals). The most effective way to reduce a castle under siege was not to clamber up its defended walls, but to poison the well and interdict resupply; the purpose of Henry VIII's Royal Navy was to bombard ports and interdict resupply: both bring Weapons of Mass Destruction onto the civilian population. Get the job done, so our boys can come home. It was civilian starvation of the Central Powers caused by Allied Naval blockade that was seen by our Leaders as having won WW1. Blockade/interdiction of supply, this time maritime+aerial, was the strategy adopted by UK in 1937 (KGV battleships and (to be) Stirling/Halifax/Lancaster), adopted in 1941 by US' Two-Ocean Navy and Ford Liberators en masse, and by (less effective) Russian, Italian and German attempts at Heavies. "Carpet bombing" created no new "frightfulness": just that by 1944 the Allies' Combined Bomber Offensive was doing the job that Zeppelin and Gotha had attempted last time. If you want to demonise Dresden, you must in logic seek to outlaw aerial bombing generically. That's precisely what the League of Nations explored, 1929-33. But when one Nation was suspected of seeking monopoly advantage, we good guys had to gird. CBW was/is in that category...and in February and August,1945 when rubble had removed their fear of our retaliation, Germany/Japan could have put up a last barricade of spores, to choke the invader to stalemate. Hitler is believed to have ordered exactly that in Berlin in May,1945. |
Bomber Harris
It depends on whether you are British or German. If you were women and children stuck in Dresden and being bombed ,choice of description is obvious.I know someone who survived the Bombs in Germany with two small children and the attack sounds really heartless.
I also had an uncle who flew over and bombed Germany and he was shattered after seeing later reports. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.