90 Years of the RAF - BBC2

[Phil_R]

You'll get no argument from me there - I'm no great fan of Auntie; I just thought there were some interesting parallels.

Consider. While the commercial broadcasters have an obvious need to get eyeballs staring at advertising, the BBC has no such requirement. Strangely, though, it seems to be behaving as if it does - as if lowest common denominator popularity is the correct measure of success - so it's not really very surprising that what the BBC are doing doesn't seem wildly differentiated from commercial output. It isn't. Yes, this is a very bad thing and defeats the object of PSB.

It isn't very easy to solve, unfortunately, because if you completely ignored popularity you'd end up with people bitching that this mandatory payment was being misused for the enjoyment of a minority. It's currently the subject of debate within the industry. I suspect you can read all about it on OFCOM's site, or find a BECTU member and look at the last issue of the union rag.

[BEagle]

The BBC programme was very shallow.

Last night's Sky One production of Tuesday's 'Millies' was very well produced - except for the cut to adverts as the minute's silence began.

That was inexcusable and ruined an otherwise excellent programme.

[Wessexman]

Some interesting and thought evoking historical footage, especially towards those who gave their lives-very humbling.

However, I am afraid that to me it seemed to reflect the current 'thinking' and attitude of the senior management within the RAF-clinging on to the history and having no clue what is happening now nor what the future plan is!

[airsound]

Thanks for kind words Chugs. Before answering some of your points, I took your suggestion and made time to watch the programme again.

is it not likely that Prospect-UK made this programme to appeal to their idea of what the BBC wants?

Yes I’m sure they did - but it’s in the nature of documentaries that include interviews that the end result doesn’t always turn out exactly like the original ‘treatment’ might have suggested. Sometimes the programme takes its own, unexpected, path.

I can’t disagree with what you say about the

contrasting themes, of light (Hendon, Battle of Britain, Typhoons at Coningsby, and the pilots of such from past and present). ..... forces of darkness (Hull, Trenchard and the raison d'etre of the RAF founding, bombing Kurdish villages, ominous lurking Zeppelin over the 1935 Cup Final, WW2 and the Bombing Offensive with striking colour footage and the ever belligerent and defiant voice of Harris both during and after the event, Grapple and the H bomb, our Cold War preparedness to use it as testified to by John Peters, with other "Bombers" from the past trying to explain their historic roles).

except to say that I see all of that as more or less factual, and not necessarily biassed against strategic bombing. What it does is to present the arguments to us, the audience. Any bias is in the eye of the audience, isn’t it? For example, the narration pointed out that Bomber Command didn’t get a mention in Churchill’s end of war speech. That’s fact. We can make of it what we will.

I don’t think I can take any credit for 'fessing up to my Beeb connections! They’re surely pretty obvious - but that doesn’t mean I support everything the Beeb does. I work for all sorts of broadcasters, not just Auntie. And incidentally, when I agreed to be considered for narrating the programme, (with the support of the RAF) I didn’t know what was in it in any detail. I did, though, harbour the vain hope that I might be able to influence some of the content

But I totally agree with your condemnation of the lack of a Bomber Command Memorial - I’m on record as doing so, and, apart from anything else, every time I commentate on a Lancaster display (several times a year) I discuss the Bomber Command losses and much else besides - and I often quote that grand old man of aviation, the late Sir George Edwards, who described the Lancaster as

“An aircraft designed by engineers and built by craftsmen and women for heroes to fly”

But as I said before, I don’t think that 'RAF at 90' was a bad programme - just not the right one.

On a slightly different note - I enjoyed your teasing comparison of Auntie and HM’s Flying Club, Phil. It reminded me of when I left at my 38 point, and was thinking of joining Auntie Beeb on the staff. I thought, you couldn’t get two more different organisations. How wrong I was - similarities included being roughly the same age, and the same size, and they had one particular thing in common. It often seemed like there were more people saying No than people trying to do things. I didn’t join Auntie’s staff. And nothing much seems to have changed.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

airsound:

Any bias is in the eye of the audience, isn’t it?

Well you know your business better than I, airsound, but I would feel that what you say and what you don't say can produce very effective bias for implanting into said audience's eyes and ears. The implication in this film was that the destruction done to German cities was unnecessary. If that is so then it was clearly a monstrous act, thoroughly justifying Harris not being ennobled (alone among the senior service commanders), his Command not being awarded the specific Bombing Campaign Medal that he called for, Churchill's infamous post Dresden memo (the greatest betrayal of all) and, as you remind us, omission from his end of war speech, and of course no National Bomber Command Memorial to date. If however, as I believe, it was the only way to take the war to the enemy (until our ground forces entered his frontiers), to frustrate his plans to triple or even quadruple war production, thus ensuring final victory then those acts were spiteful and mean spirited, especially given the length and cost of that bloody campaign. As I understand it, it was reports back from the advancing army that finally brought home the extent and scope of destruction caused by bombing that had befallen German towns and cities that started a wave of revulsion especially amongst those who had long resented the precious resources ploughed into the Bombing Campaign rather than theirs, as well as the usual suspects (Cannon Collins, Stafford Cripps etc). I'm afraid that moral outrage amongst the British has always had more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it, and this was no exception. I don't think that the Beeb at the time reflected this view, though I stand to be corrected, but over the years it has adapted to this conventional wisdom, and thus reinforced it. That is what they have done with this programme and 60+ years after the event that just isn't good enough. Either this campaign was not only justified but essential or it was criminal. Hinting at one or the other with speaking clocks, having elderly gentlemen espousing about giving Kurds a "good hiding", showing Zeppelins interrupting FA Cup Finals, running secretly filmed footage of the aftermath of German city air raids is just being ambivalent. Given that the post war British Government was anything but ambivalent and ostracized both Harris and his Command, so setting the national attitude ever after, isn't it pure hypocrisy to produce a piece that says nothing but implies the same old conventional wisdom?

[spamcanner]

A very disappointing programme for all of the above reasons.
Why keep showing the fair ground rides for gawd's sake! Too
arty farty for my liking! Anyway on to the reason for my post.

The one part I did enjoy, apart from the Grapple footage, was
the interview with John Peters. That image of him on tv during
the first Gulf War is still fresh in my mind even now.
The question they obviously didn't ask him, unless it ended up
on that cutting room floor with all the other good bits, was
that having left Bruggen or Laarbruch to take out a silo across
the border with a nuke, for example, and with the prospect of
mutual destruction of air bases, did each crew have a plan of
where they'd fly to having delivered their payload? Would it have
been a dirty dive south until the fuel ran out and Martin Baker
came into play? This is assuming that they survived that long
of course. Or was it seen as a suicide mission, end of story???
Did they in fact have enough fuel to reach airfields outside of the
ensuing maelstrom?
Maybe it was never contemplated as a serious possibility by the
aircrews because as JP said, it seemed such a ridiculous scenario
that neither side would dare be the one to unleash that first
weapon. Who knows? At least we're still here anyway

[Green Flash]

Would it have been a dirty dive south until the fuel ran out and Martin Baker came into play?

I wonder if a dirty dive North might have paid better dividends? Over the Baltic at warp factor snot and pull the handles in the Stockholm FIR? (assuming a Viggen didn't get you first!) Or was Sweden going to get as hot as the rest of us? Anyway, JP's was one of the better bits. In fact, it would have been interesting to compare JP's prospective mission with that of his WarPact opposite number? There must have been a Flogger driver with the Clutch bases as his target? (Ditto a Challenger commander and T-82 boss, etc etc; it's coming up to 20 years since the Wall came down?!)

[airsound]

Chugs, I find it hard to disagree with you in many respects.

Harris not being ennobled (alone among the senior service commanders), his Command not being awarded the specific Bombing Campaign Medal that he called for, Churchill's infamous post Dresden memo (the greatest betrayal of all) and omission from his end of war speech, and of course no National Bomber Command Memorial to date

All of those things rankle with me too. Where I diverge from your argument is when you say

The implication in this film was that the destruction done to German cities was unnecessary.

I believe the film reflected the extremely difficult nature of the judgement that had, and has, to be made. I don’t believe that the judgement is as simple as

Either this campaign was not only justified but essential or it was criminal.

because I don’t believe we shall ever know for sure whether the campaign was justified or essential. At the time there were plenty of arguments in favour of it - but it seems to me that, even well after the event, it is impossible to quantify the ‘what-ifs’ and decide whether the end could have been achieved by some, less-damaging means. Which means, in my view, that the question of criminality remains, at most, moot, and probably unsupportable.

I have to say that I don’t believe that this programme advanced that argument any further. And I also don’t see the film as part of a BBC conspiracy to take such a view forward whenever an opportunity arises, whether in its own programmes or in ‘outsourced’ programmes.

A further couple of things that I didn’t like about the programme have come to mind. I’m with spamcanner in his mystification about the reasons for the repeated fairground rides - and I also have to confess I didn’t understand the significance of the vintage phone timechecks.

airsound

[thegypsy]

Let's face it Churchill was an absolute disaster in his political life except during WW11. The Gold Standard, Gallipolli, changing parties, his idea that we could keep an Empire after WW11. As for his lack of support for Bomber Command after the war that was the final insult.

[Chugalug2]

airsound:

I don’t believe we shall ever know for sure whether the campaign was justified or essential.

Well I think we should know for sure by now, and it is plain moral cowardice if we can't make that judgement as a nation. Of course there were more pressing matters of Real Politik at the time. Those whose cities we had laid waste were, in the main, now part of the western alliance to become later NATO. Those in support of whom we had conducted this "second front" were now changing from friend to potential enemy, in turn to become the Warsaw Pact. However, I am clear in my mind that not only would the WW2 Soviet death toll, some 25 million, have become greater still, but potentially it would have risen to hundreds of millions if the war production, unhindered by bombing, had meant a Nazi victory instead on the Eastern Front and racial cleansing, as planned, of the defeated Soviet population to put the Holocaust in the shade. D-day would never have succeeded, given the million men, and thousands of 88mm's and aircraft of the Luftwaffe released to defence of the Atlantic Wall. I see no reason why the Third Reich would not still be enslaving subject peoples from Brest to the Urals and beyond. Certainly this country would have had to sue for peace long since, and be ruled by our version of Vichy, if we were lucky! All that balanced against maybe as many as half a million enemy civilian deaths due to bombing? War is evil, this campaign was evil, but it helped defeat a far greater evil and without its help that greater evil would have prevailed. It was the right call then and it still is in my book. Of course I may be wrong, and the contrary argument right, but I would contend that we know enough now to have that debate and decide once and for all if we are to condemn these young men or condone them. They had the guts then to face up to this dilemma, for they were all volunteers, it speaks volumes about us that it would seem we don't. The ambiguity of this film highlights that moral vacuum.

[goofer]

It's to be expected that a programme with this title would disappoint at least as many as it pleased. Judging by this thread, it plainly touched nerves all round. So it should. Beyond the closed circle of crab-anoraks it has received justifiable plaudits as an attempt to capture the complex emotions aroused by death-from-the-sky.

This was never intended to be the last word on the RAF. But it should surely be seen as an honest contribution to the media history of the service. Moreover, I'll bet it's done more not less to raise the profile of Bomber Command and its justifiable claim to national recognition. The Producer (known to me) applied a commendably objective perspective and the result - to my very pro-military eye - enhanced rather than diminished the RAF's claim on intelligent people's support.

And, for better or worse, intelligent non-military licence-payers are the ones we have to reach. This progaramme helped the process and should be welcomed accordingly. We need more of this kind of thought-provoking TV coverage, not less.

[airsound]

Chugs, I guess I’m not expressing myself clearly. There is absolutely no way I would “condemn these young men” of Bomber Command. I would never presume to do so. To the contrary, I remain lost in admiration for their courage and steadfastness, and I can’t begin to imagine how they managed to go out night after night to do the (literally) awesome task that they had been given. No, any ambiguity about the rightness of the method rests firmly well above the pay grade of the aircrews.

And I have no dispute with you about the risks and possible outcomes of a continuing Third Reich. My questioning related solely to the efficacy of area bombing of largely civilian targets.

But I’m sure you noted that even this film, with its “very effective bias” (your words), let us hear Harris’ words about how the killing of apparently uninvolved civilians contributed to the destruction of the war machine.

I said in my first post on the subject (#80) “I thought it (the programme) was rather good”. I still think that, and I agree with Goofer when he/she says

We need more of this kind of thought-provoking TV coverage, not less.

Having said that, though, I believe the title ‘RAF at 90’ led to expectations that were clearly unfulfilled.

airsound

[Chugalug2]

airsound, it was not you but I that did not express clearly. My comments were of "we" as a nation and not directed to any individual, least of all you. As regards targets for Main Force, for all of his bellicose rhetoric Harris was basically a pragmatic man. By targeting cities he could be reasonably, though not wholly, confident that his crews could find them and hit them. Anything smaller and more obscure was a tall order for inexperienced crews (as the bulk always were), at night, in hostile skies, with uncertain cloud cover, and navigational technology both rudimentary and later jammable. To be effective this weapon had to be used continually and in strength. It was in effect a damned big club. Those who propose the equivalent of rapier like precision are misguided. It might be possible with a few elite units (viz 617) but no more. Even by day the USAAF did little better, for all the talk of "pickle barrels", with bomb creep amongst other factors increasing the error. All the industry within or served by a bombed city would be affected, together with transportation, utilities, communications, and of course the inhabitants. In other words disruption on a huge scale night after night, city after city. No matter how clever was Speer, how brutal Himmler, that affected war production and that meant less of everything in Russia, in particular tanks of course. The cities were the targets BC could get to and hit, oil refineries, ball bearing factories, synthetic fuel plants etc etc were all very well, but they were both dispersed and remote deliberately. Harris did what he could with what he had and for all the sneering summaries that production hardly faltered, the important thing is that it scarcely rose. That in spite of 24 hour working, total mobilisation and the cruel use of slave labour all introduced in vain attempts to match allied production. The dire shortages suffered by the Wehrmacht in Russia, the almost total absence of the Luftwaffe in the west, all bear witness to the overall success of the Strategic Bombing campaign against Germany. If we don't like what we have to do to win wars, the answer is to avoid fighting them, for the worst outcome of all results from not being prepared to do what is required to win; you lose!
I seem to have managed to avoid mention of the programme itself entirely, so I judge myself guilty of thread creep and perhaps have said all that I can say. I must acknowledge though that the programme has at least triggered a debate and that must be a point in its favour!

[bombedup6]

Concur with Airsound's first post on this 80 per cent, having Sky-plussed the programme and watched it last night. Having written three aviation history books I found the long, 90-year theme a key ingredient ie 'what's the RAF all FOR". Thus the opening and closing fairground shots - the theme of flight as exhilarating and fun - combined with its darker purpose of death and destruction. The vintage speaking clock was also a brilliant touch, 'artsy fartsy' as some have said, but a 90-year reminder that the sheer speed and timeliness of airpower is what makes the RAF so singularly different from the other traditional services. I wouldn't have thought of that. As one who lived at Gutersloh when the Berlin Wall went up in 1961 I became seriously aware that we were only four minutes Soviet flying time from the East German border - coincidentally, the same time it took for an unstoppable ballistic nuke missile to reach the UK from Belorussia.

Criticisms: 1/ Too much time spent on Harris and WWII Bomber Command. A much better use of that time, in my view, would have been to connect the dots of bombing civilians - whether deliberately or not - over the entire 90 years of the RAF, starting with the V/1500 bombing of King Amanullah's palace in Kabul in 1919 (effective), through the Mau Mau bombings in 1953 (ineffective), to the present, where even the most careful, precision-guided attack does -very rarely - kill innocent civilians (and helps recruit more enemy). A consistent theme of civilians is the 'unfairness' of aerial bombing because it is seen as one of the most remote forms of warfare, in which the killers can return to their safe homes after doing their 'foul' deeds, an attitude particularly generated after Guernica, 1936 (OK they were Nazis). And the programme didn't even mention 39 Sqn bombing Afghanistan from the ground 8,000 miles away in Nevada. Armies and navies, however, are seen as sharing the same battlegrounds and do not seem to generate the same public approbrium - though I would not like to say that to the people of Warsaw 1944, or Sarajevo 1994 .

I offer all this as an explanation for a focus on strategic bombing from a civilian perspective, which this BBC programme addresses.
Having said all that, the price paid by Bomber Command MUST be recognised with a major monument in London.

Criticism 2/ The vital role of the RAF in transportation, from dropping Paras in WWII to the Berlin airlift in 47/8, to modern air drops in disasters around the world. Ditto helicopters.

3/ The programme missed a chance to cite High Flight, the greatest poem to aviation, written by Canadian John Gillespie McGee shortly before his death in a Spitfire over England in 1941.

Overall, a pretty good effort to present the RAF's history to a general audience.