Bomber Harris Interview on TV (merged - AGAIN!)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The Red Army captured Berlin and the German Government surrendered unconditionally.
QED.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Stable
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
cowhorse:-
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.
...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.
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Stable
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
is that they are all quoted by the chattering classes rather than, for example,
Berlin, Hamburg, and Tokyo, all of which arguably suffered worse.
He was obliged
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were indeed Strategic Targets because their
destruction with one bomb apiece ended the war in the Far East.
destruction with one bomb apiece ended the war in the Far East.
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.
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.
I only gave a couple of examples - there were many more.
So that's your defense? He was obliged?
Japan capitulated because the Soviets declared war on them
the only realistic high damage weapon of that era was an atomic bomb, and Germans weren't even close of building one.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
if you call Blitz a crime (and I do), then you also have to point out crimes made by Allies.
So Eisenhower preferred to invade Japan rather than force a surrender by use of the Atomic Bombs? I had no idea...
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
Not sure how all that advances the argument much, unless the flag in the yard bears the Swastika. How about that for a twist?
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
Not sure how all that advances the argument much, unless the flag in the yard bears the Swastika. How about that for a twist?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 21st Feb 2013 at 13:39.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
So Eisenhower preferred to invade Japan rather than force a surrender by use of the Atomic Bombs? I had no idea...
I [Eisenhower] was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.
a vigorous assent
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.
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
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
Last edited by Chugalug2; 21st Feb 2013 at 14:33.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 21st Feb 2013 at 16:36.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Well said, PW 
You might have said:-
but I prefer your version:-
Especially remembering that those 55573 men of whom you speak died so that people would be free to spout that PC drivel...
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.”
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
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had World War 2 started in Europe 4-5 years ago, would we still feel the need to destroy enemy cities?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..