Canadians question morality of Bomber Command

[niknak]

In the late 60s,although retired from Air Force, my Grandfather through commercial contacts, entered into trade with a German businessman who was more or less the equivilant of his status during both wars. This man remained a personal and family friend until my Grandfathers death in 1990, and I kept in touch with him until he died in 1996.

It's ironic that both of them had much the same tale to tell;

1) I WW1 they were young, keen and willing to give all to the cause, which they did, and, despite the odds, managed to survive.

2) Having survived WW1, they were a lot wiser than most but didn't or were unable to make their opinions of the horrors of war public, so off they went and did their bit. On both sides, this sometimes meant taking part in bombing raids they both knew would entail deaths of perfectly innocent people, but either you believed that was the right thing to do for the greater good or you were convinced that if you didn't take part, you and your family would die from the hand of your own Government, again, that applied to both the Allies and Germany.

My experience is not just limited to this, but also having had a neighbour who was forced to be a member of the Nazi Youth Party, there wasn't a day that went by that she didn't apologise to me for things she had absolutely no control over.

So Ladies and Gentleman, before you launch into tirades of self importance about how we would now be speaking German and wearing Jack Boots, (the Nazis were far more intelligent than that - they recognised the importance of retaining national identities), just remember that the vast majority of personnnel fighting for the cause in both sides were innocent parties.

That applies to WW1, WW2 and most wars before and after.

[nigegilb]

The numbers killed are startling. Over 55,000 RAF Aircrew killed in Bomber Command. This compares with Officer losses in the Great War of 38,000, a war that is widely considered to have wiped out a generation of Britain's finest. I have read that 60,000 Britons were killed in German raids, but numbers of German civilians killed were very much higher. The city of Hamburg alone lost 118,000 this compares to losses of 40,000 in the Great War. It is interesting that the RAF chooses to celebrate the Battle of Britain but little is remembered officially about the contribution of the Bomber Command. Maybe the memory of Dresden is still too raw for many people. What is beyond doubt is the bravery of the crews; they simply did not have the technology to deliver their weaponry accurately enough to avoid civilians. I for one do not believe in targetting civilians per se, but as has been said the Germans decided to bomb our cities first.

[dakkg651]

I think the myth that the Dresden raid was purely down to Arthur Harris was a ploy by Churchill to try and distance himself from the fact that it was actually on his orders that major area bombing was recommenced at that late period in the war. Not only Dresden, but three other eastern towns, were pencilled in for the same treatment. After the Dresden raid, the loud rumblings from the strenghening Labour Party caused Churchill to slope shoulders in order to try and protect his position.
I am not trying to denigrate the great man who brought this Country through its greatest test in recent history but, with the end of the war insight, I am sure that post-war politics was foremost in his mind.

Of course, all of this mattered not one whit to the crews risking their necks over what was still a heavily defended Third Reich.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by niknak

... entail deaths of perfectly innocent people, but either you believed that was the right thing to do for the greater good or you were convinced that if you didn't take part, you and your family would die from the hand of your own Government, again, that applied to both the Allies and Germany.
...(the Nazis were far more intelligent than that - they recognised the importance of retaining national identities),

By 'the Allies' I assume you mean the USSR, or do you have knowledge of secret UK extermination camps? Either way this is typical PC moral equivalence, and contemptible for all that. Bomber command crew members who 'didn't take part' were invariably tainted as Lacking Moral Fibre and put on menial duties. Shamed yes, but suffering a fate somewhat less than if they had been serving Fuhrer or Generalissimo.
The Nazis were thugs, from before being voted into power until convicted at Nuremberg. They were more preoccupied with exterminating National Identities than retaining them. You need to get real. 'Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.'

[LFittNI]

The myth of German production figures

Brakes...Beer has it entirely correct.
The Strategic Bombing Survey carried out by the US DoD just after the war is the cause of the oft-repeated myth that German war-economy was hardly affected until the very later stages.
This survey, which the (later to be highly distinguished) economist JK Galbraith had a heavy hand in structuring, has been largely discredited.
In essence, the economic models and assumptions used were too closed and inclusive, so that the results did not take account of the (truly massive) economic resources required to keep Germany functioning at all. That is in addition to the points already made in other posts regarding the diversion of military effort to defend "der Heimat".
The German reserves of gold and hard convertible currencies (a large proportion of which was of course looted) stored in Swiss banks (and there's another disgraceful episode) which were used to buy raw materials had started to run out in 1943-4. So, there were example effects such as large production figures for Me109's being rendered useless due to deficiencies such as lack of fuel to fly and train with, rubber for tyres, crystals and valves for their radios.

[blueplume]

"I for one do not believe in targetting civilians per se, but as has been said the Germans decided to bomb our cities first."

The german military/Hitler, not the civilian population. At the risk of being branded an apologist, which I definitely am not, I have to say that no population as a whole can ever be blamed for the decisions taken by the selct few at the top who confer in secret. That the german military machine bombed British cities is not questioned, it happened. It was bad. The bombing of german cities was just as bad but it helped to to bring about the downfall of the regime. This does not make it better. Such is life.

Would the Iranians be right to blame Iraqis as a whole for the bloodshed suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein because he felt justified to start a war against them?

Yes, those who died fighting to prevent an unpalatable future should be remembered and those that survived should be honoured because it was all rather difficult and unpleasant.

[You want it when?]

A different time, with different values and diferent pressures. To even have the temerity to 2nd guess the situation then is total bollocks. I don't care how well researched or how many "I was there" statements it just is not possible to judge history with todays ethics.

Having said that.

Bomber command served, and served well. They deserve kudos and not brick-bats.

I'm proud of my parentage, those who served (and died) and those who get very very very drunk before they spill the beans. My children wear their poppies with pride - currently 'cos I ask them too but soon because they will won't too. And if they don't - that's their choice too.

[PTT]

Originally Posted by You want it when?

A different time, with different values and diferent pressures. To even have the temerity to 2nd guess the situation then is total bollocks. I don't care how well researched or how many "I was there" statements it just is not possible to judge history with todays ethics.

Absolutely and entirely agree. We cannot judge yesterday's actions based on today's morality. If we could, then as a corrollary we could judge today's actions by yesterday's morality, and I seriously doubt that much of popuar culture and fashion would stand up to scrutiny.

Bloody well done Bomber Command.

[endplay]

I wholeheartedly agree with the view that bomber command's sacrifice and efforts should not be demeaned by pink coloured hindsight but I have a question regarding Churchill and "The Few".
I've always taken this to be a reference to the BoB fighter pilots but this thread has led me to look at the speech in more detail. It seems to me that he was referring to bomber command in at least equal measure, arguably more so than fighter command.
Has my understanding of "The Few" been wrong for the past 39 years or has history somehow distorted the meaning of the speech. I reproduce the relevant paragraph here to save anyone the googling effort. (Apologies if this is seen as drift)

"The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. All hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day; but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power. On no part of the Royal Air Force does the weight of the war fall more heavily than on the daylight bombers, who will play an invaluable part in the case of invasion and whose unflinching zeal it has been necessary in the meanwhile on numerous occasions to restrain."

Edit: 39 years is time served by the way and not, unfortunately, my age.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by endplay

Has my understanding of "The Few" been wrong for the past 39 years or has history somehow distorted the meaning of the speech.
"but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power. On no part of the Royal Air Force does the weight of the war fall more heavily than on the daylight bombers, who will play an invaluable part in the case of invasion and whose unflinching zeal it has been necessary in the meanwhile on numerous occasions to restrain."

Good point Endplay, I would say that we have all been suckered into this belief. The Bombing Campaign which, like the Battle of the Atlantic, lasted throughout the entire War, became non PC in the face of the Soviet Threat and the need to be chums with our NATO partner Germany. Unlike the Battle of the Atlantic, and every other major campaign fought by the British, the Bombing Campaign was the only one not to have its own medal. This slur, together with the way the CinC, 'Bomber' Harris, has been vilified by people who should know better, is a national disgrace. At least some amends could be made by striking a campaign star now. If Suez qualifies, I'm damned sure that the huge losses and very real contribution to victory by these brave men should.

[Rheinstorff]

Originally Posted by anotherthing

I assume I am not the only one who thinks that we have gone too lilly livered?

Blair the other day apologised for Britains part in slavery hundreds of years ago - and campaigners complained he did not go far enough!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm waiting for someone to thank me for the efforts of the Royal Navy to stop slave trading. I'm not in the RN and wasn't alive (obviously) at the time, but I think I deserve to be thanked anyway.

[GPMG]

Don't be silly Rheinstorff. You should be saying sorry to everyone you meet for us Brits using slaves a couple of hundered years ago.

You could also apologise to the French for Agincourt, the Spanish for sinking their Armada and the American Indians for inflicting the yanks on them.

In fact that last one is worth apologising for

About time we went back over there and whipped our offspring back into line.

[tornadoken]

Bombing's "morality" is "the Just War" again.

“The Air Forces ought all to be abolished.”
“We have seen the last of the great Commanders. Next time the competition may be to kill women and children (civil) population generally, and victory will give herself in sorry nuptials to the diligent hero who organises it on the largest (scale. Nations believing) their life is at stake will not be restrained from using any means to secure their existence.”
It's irritating when bright young things discover morality, as if their elders and betters had never been there. 1st. quote above was (ex/again to be PM) Baldwin,10/11/32 ref. The League of Nations’ Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, meeting from 2/2/32, which after failing to outlaw bombing had sought to limit its efficacy: a maximum tare weight of 6,600lb would give range or load and our first monoplane Bombers - Wellington, Hampden - were so constrained. 2nd. was Churchill,The Great War/III, 1933.
It was precisely because we did not fund a credible Deterrent that we all suffered, 1939-1945. It was precisely because we were able to deliver CBW that we only(!) suffered HE: that is what Churchill was alluding to in his Finest Hour speech: “the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” It was precisely because we were able to deliver nukes 1946-1991 that we had no cause to do so. Maybe £32Bn. has no fixed virtue for UK Defence, maybe no one weapon is above scrutiny - let's talk about all that. But twaddling on about carpet-bombing simply displays denial: a Nation under Threat - siege - will do what it takes to breakout. As one Nation, as the EU, as NATO, as a responsible Member of UN, we do not know what lies over the hill, so we must be precisely as prepared as is tolerably affordable. Writing in 1788 of the Roman Empire Gibbon had: “No State, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above (1%) of its members in arms and idleness.” Japan has thrived for 50 years on Defence at 1% of GDP. They' re talking of increasing that, now.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by PTT

Absolutely and entirely agree. We cannot judge yesterday's actions based on today's morality. If we could, then as a corrollary we could judge today's actions by yesterday's morality, and I seriously doubt that much of popuar culture and fashion would stand up to scrutiny.

Bloody well done Bomber Command.

"Here, here" to your final statement PTT, but can I gently pick up on your previous one that "we cannot judge yesterday's actions based on today's morality", a point similarly made by others on this thread, and indeed elsewhere. The implication is that if WW2 were rerun with the same players, same equipment and same technology, but with "today's" rather than "yesterday's" morality, the British conduct of the war, and in particular the use of the Strategic Bomber Force, would be different. My question is simply, in what way?. The propaganda may well have represented these missions as an "eye for an eye", "reaping the whirlwind", etc. It may well be that some, such as Harris, thought that the campaign would alone bring victory by smashing civilian morale. We now know all that was specious nonsense, but that doesn't change the basic truth that this weapon was the only one that could be brought to bear by the western allies against the enemy , other than against its expeditionary and naval forces, until the invasions of Italy and France. Further it was a successful and effective weapon, as stated in this thread, in that it made these invasions possible and prevented the development and production of strategic war winning weapon systems. In short we would have lost the war without this necessary and costly effort. The fact that we smashed whole cities, rather than specific industrial and military targets, was the unavoidable effect of the overall Bomber Force capability. So again I ask why would we do different now?

[228 OCU]

This PC Bulls**t makes me seethe and is an insult to the 55,573 aircrew lost.
To all those dogooder armchair historians, who have my utter contempt, I leave you with this poem.

My brief sweet life is over, my eyes no longer see;
no summer walks, no christmas trees, no pretty girls for me.
I've got the chop, I've had it, my nightly ops are done;
Yet in another 100 years, I'll still be 21.


God bless each and every one of you.

[debsh]

Churchill's Input on 'Kick Bomber Command'

Arthur Harris was not too enamoured of the Dresden order - he insisted that it be given to him in writing. He got it and always understood that the attack on East German targets was in response to demands by Joe Stalin, benevolent overlord and mass murderer, of Soviet Russia
It was Churchill who, some argue, started the denigration of Bomber Command; his Victory Speech in May 1945 praised everybody and credited all with the Defeat of Germany except Bomber Command. The Victory Honours List tossed out peerages hither and yon but pointedly excluded Harris. Like Dowding, he didn't receive promotion when just about every other military name was getting a step up the ladder (as it happened he got his MRAF a couple of days before he left the service but that's another story).
For what it is worth, Harris claimed that he refused a peerage unless his 'boys and girls' received their own campaign medal. This was to be across the board, aircrew and groundcrew alike, irrespective of gender.
The response, in essence, was that the Aircrew Europe Star served the purpose; and that it was difficult to draw the line once non-operational personnel were involved. Is the chap in the headquarters typing out words of wisdom by the Wing Commander less worthy than the guy who froze off his nuts bombing-up a Whitley?
I'm not taking sides - just summarising.
Churchill offered Harris a peerage when he (Churchill) returned to power in 1951. Bert refused with a comment along the lines that being a Lordship in South Africa was about as useful as a hippopotamus in Trafalgar Square.
And as far as morality goes, there were a good number of people who argued against the bombing offensive - including the padre at High Wycombe. He and Bert used to have exciting arguments about it . . . .

[AngloPepper]

The quoted panel at the Canadian War Museum is merely the final product after a lot of effort by the Candian Legion to get a little less revisionist history on display. Even so, I and many Canadians are not satisfied that the fight is over, as this panel continues to suggest that the Bomber Offensive was a waste of effort and did not succeed.
B..B posted some very good points against this; here are some other thoughts to ponder and, perhaps, get the CWM to admit.
Firstly, the oft-repeated claim that German war production was hardly affected is a massive mis-direction. While this is true in absolute terms, it is VERY wrong in relative terms. Allied war production continued to climb during WW2, peaking in 1945. A key objective of the Bomber Offensive was to prevent Nazi Germany achieving the same, and in large part it did so. The naval blockade contributed, as did the Resistance, but by far the greatest impact on the inability of German industry to expand was allied bombing.
Secondly, the dispersion of German indisutry left munitions more vulnerable to disruption of transportation. Attacks on infrastructure and fuel not only prevented free movement of German forces, it also badly affected industrial efficiency and destroyed finished materiel before it reached the front. The Russian and Italian Fronts benefitted from the disruption of transportation just as the western front did.
Thirdly, the contribution of a strategic campaign boosted allied morale, assured the Russians that the western allies were trying to do something, and allowed Russian industry to concentrate on tactical aircraft.
Fourthly, given the limitations of technology, the choice to bomb area targets at night was the only logical choice that Bomber Command had. Only by Bomber Command taking the fight to the enemy was the 8th AF given the breathing room to develop daylight precision bombing to the point where it was both effective and had acceptable losses. Had anyone tried unescorted daylight bombing into Germany without working up an effective escort capability, the bomber fleet would have been crippled.
Finally, a contrary note. The contribution of materiel and personnel to the bomber offensive was probably not a zero-sum game. As B..B noted, the Germans put a huge amount of personnel and equipment into defence of the Reich, but many of the AA crews were old men and boys (and girls) who could not be deployed to the front. Flak guns were a lot cheaper than bombers and had a lower attrition rate. But most importantly, bomber crews were made up of the the cream of the men available, and trained for up to 2 years before operational deployment. The cost of training these men so comprehensively for so few sorties has to be questioned; what impact on the war could 55000 elite men have had using, say, more tactical air power?
However, the skill and gallantry of those who flew in Bomber Command is beyond reproach. Their motives for taking such risks should be above question not only from a logical review of history, but more so out of respect.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by AngloPepper

But most importantly, bomber crews were made up of the the cream of the men available, and trained for up to 2 years before operational deployment. The cost of training these men so comprehensively for so few sorties has to be questioned; what impact on the war could 55000 elite men have had using, say, more tactical air power?
However, the skill and gallantry of those who flew in Bomber Command is beyond reproach. Their motives for taking such risks should be above question not only from a logical review of history, but more so out of respect.

Thoughtful and comprehensive post AP. Since you pose the question above, may I attempt an answer? The main impact for the 55000 men themselves, I suspect, if they had been utilised in a Tactical role, would be that they would not all have perished as they did flying over Germany. But the Luftwaffe Air Fleets dedicated to the Defence of the Reich would also have been released, possibly to France, the Low Countries and Italy, as well as the Eastern Front. Fuel shortages and industrial disruption, caused by the Bomber Offensive, would not now have restricted their numbers or capability, and they would surely have maintained Air Superiority in those skies. No Italian or French landings could have succeeded. Meanwhile the Red Army would have faced an invigorated foe in terms of numbers and quality of aircraft, tanks and supplies. Finally Hitler's Scientists would have had the research and production capability to churn out the jet fighters, bombers, rockets as well as Atomic, Biological and Chemical Agents that he might have felt 'obliged' to rain down on the Soviets, ourselves, and even the US itself. In short he might have obliged us to do what we were too obstinate to do in 1940, sue for peace. Your intriguing question seems to me to emphasise the debt that we all owe to those 55,00 men, whose death was not a 'zero sum' but crucial to our freedom!