Economist book review - The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A war fighting leader who takes it to the enemy should never be allowed gain political office, their personality alone precludes them as lacking the compromise and deceit that is required in politics. That is fine as long as everybody recignise that we need dogs to fight dogs.
Eisenhower was as much a politician as a general, Patton was a general, MacArthur also a general................real difference here.
Eisenhower was as much a politician as a general, Patton was a general, MacArthur also a general................real difference here.
Mountbatten? Churchill? Wellington even.
Even De Gaulle.
A bit selective perhaps?
Mountbatten? Churchill? Wellington even.
Even De Gaulle.
Mountbatten? Churchill? Wellington even.
Even De Gaulle.
Churchill............. Successful brilliant Wartime political leader but had significant failures as a Military man and lost trust of people in WW1, had WW2 not occurred he would be a footnote in History. Even during phoney war didn't have enough support among MPs. Should have retired as a politician in 45 rather than continuing.
de Gualle............Brilliant soldier in WW1, saw what way war would occur but sidelined within France, understood better the need for post war France and keeping Communists out of power, resigned early and had an opportunity to return to save nation. Overall a better soldier than politician.
Last edited by racedo; 31st Dec 2013 at 16:07.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Non! 
Can't disagree with any of that.
Really I think you could pick any politician/general, general/politician, and even a pure politician and find the same failings - Generals Blair and Bush anyone?
Can't disagree with any of that.
Really I think you could pick any politician/general, general/politician, and even a pure politician and find the same failings - Generals Blair and Bush anyone?
Really I think you could pick any politician/general, general/politician, and even a pure politician and find the same failings - Generals Blair and Bush anyone?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I can imagine the college warrant officer having apoplexy.
What I found sad was being ordered to be sociable rent-a-crowd even if you despised the VIP.
Think the message if rent-a-crown had a free choice and opted out.
I got 'invited' to a do to meet one of our great and good honourable members. He was in jail about 4 years later.
What I found sad was being ordered to be sociable rent-a-crowd even if you despised the VIP.
Think the message if rent-a-crown had a free choice and opted out.
I got 'invited' to a do to meet one of our great and good honourable members. He was in jail about 4 years later.
racedo:-
The only thing that ends war is surrender, sometimes termed an Armistice in order to save face. It is what leads up to that being the only option left that wins wars. What lead up to it in Europe in WW2 was the occupation of Germany. What led up to that was the successful advance of the Red Army in the East and the success of D-Day in the West. What led up to that was the industrial disruption caused night and day by the Allied Bombing Campaign, which had serious effects in both East and West, not the least of which was the local air superiority over the invasion beaches enjoyed by the Allied Air Forces.
Of course many other factors led to those two successful invasions, the build up to which owed much to the sacrifices made in the Atlantic, The Arctic, and in Italy. All of these meant that the end of the war could happen, and happen before the lights of perverted science could produce yet more peril. Could it have been done differently? No doubt. Could it have been done better? Of course. The important thing is that it was done. The Royal Air Force should be proud of the part played by Bomber Command in that doing. Is it?
Bombing the cities didn't end the war, nor was it ever likely to. It was done to make people aware of the cost of war.
Of course many other factors led to those two successful invasions, the build up to which owed much to the sacrifices made in the Atlantic, The Arctic, and in Italy. All of these meant that the end of the war could happen, and happen before the lights of perverted science could produce yet more peril. Could it have been done differently? No doubt. Could it have been done better? Of course. The important thing is that it was done. The Royal Air Force should be proud of the part played by Bomber Command in that doing. Is it?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also like to suggest that however effective or not RAF Bomber Command was in 1942-1943, it was the only Allied military force attacking the Nazis in their homeland.
This was an important point when in 1941-1943 the Wehrmacht was on the banks of the Volga, within shelling distance of Moscow and Leningrad, and rampaging across the Caucasus towards the oilfields of the Middle East.
It was the military action that Churchill could present to Marshall Stalin as positive proof of Allied intentions to defeat Germany when there were suspicions in the Kremlin of the possibility of Allied collusion with the Nazis in their dealings with the Soviet Union.
Stalin always backed the Allied bombing campaign as helping to deflect some of the Germans attention away from operations in the Soviet Union.
This was an important point when in 1941-1943 the Wehrmacht was on the banks of the Volga, within shelling distance of Moscow and Leningrad, and rampaging across the Caucasus towards the oilfields of the Middle East.
It was the military action that Churchill could present to Marshall Stalin as positive proof of Allied intentions to defeat Germany when there were suspicions in the Kremlin of the possibility of Allied collusion with the Nazis in their dealings with the Soviet Union.
Stalin always backed the Allied bombing campaign as helping to deflect some of the Germans attention away from operations in the Soviet Union.
The Royal Air Force should be proud of the part played by Bomber Command in that doing. Is it?
Its like US celebrating 2 Atom bombs dropped..........
Recognise the achievement and bury it.
The honour is in their service recognise that and leave it at that.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Interesting daily report in the DT today of the Berlin raids in Dec 1943 and details of the infra-red search lights and cathode ray tubes enabling precision bombing through heavy cloud in conditions that grounded defensive fighters.
It may not have won the war but it would certainly annoyed the Berliners.
It may not have won the war but it would certainly annoyed the Berliners.
racedo:-
I can't understand any of that, I'm afraid. Harris and his Command was dropped like a hot potato even as the war drew to an end, not only by the chattering classes, but disgracefully by Churchill himself who had presided over the campaign throughout, and even more disgracefully by that hot bed of intrigue and backstabbing, the RAF High Command.
As to "celebrate", who on earth would suggest doing that after so much sacrifice? One can be proud of that without celebrating it. The Bomber Command Memorial does not celebrate, Remembrance does not celebrate, but the duty done should be remembered with pride.
Germany had to be defeated and as soon as possible, for it were not then Europe and beyond might have remained under its cruel tyranny for a very long time (the thousand years promised?). It was defeated and I take pride in the generation that did that. You may not...
It was initially post war but to celebrate that well after the event when hundreds of thousands killed is looked at poorly.
As to "celebrate", who on earth would suggest doing that after so much sacrifice? One can be proud of that without celebrating it. The Bomber Command Memorial does not celebrate, Remembrance does not celebrate, but the duty done should be remembered with pride.
Germany had to be defeated and as soon as possible, for it were not then Europe and beyond might have remained under its cruel tyranny for a very long time (the thousand years promised?). It was defeated and I take pride in the generation that did that. You may not...
Chug
Think you misreading what I wrote.
Honour those who served but unfortunately there are some who will seek to glorify it and celebrate it.
The ditching of those who sacrificed is not unusual because those who demanded what they did were embarassed that they did what was expected. It then became expedient to claim they had gone too far. Its politics and politicians.
Think you misreading what I wrote.
Honour those who served but unfortunately there are some who will seek to glorify it and celebrate it.
The ditching of those who sacrificed is not unusual because those who demanded what they did were embarassed that they did what was expected. It then became expedient to claim they had gone too far. Its politics and politicians.
It's talk, and rubbish at that. Those who can sit in judgement on previous generations and condemn them for going too far are failing to learn the lessons of history and are doomed to repeat them.
Every war is driven by the art of the possible, of the technology available. By WW2 it was possible not only to attack enemy forces in the field, at sea, and in the air, but to attack his heartland, his means of war production and his civilian population that did the producing.
To characterise that as immoral, evil and 'going too far' is to miss the point that war is all of those things anyway. There is no honourable war, just war. If your enemy has the means to bomb you then he will. If you don't want him to then don't go to war!
We had to win WW2, make no mistake, and we did. If we had not bombed Germany by night, and the USAAC by day, then we might not have. The lights might never have come on again in our time. You fight a war to win. That means acting immorally, often with evil intent, and of going too far. That's what it takes to win a war. That is what it took the Allies to win the war, that is why two A bombs were dropped. If you don't fight to win then you lose...simples!
Every war is driven by the art of the possible, of the technology available. By WW2 it was possible not only to attack enemy forces in the field, at sea, and in the air, but to attack his heartland, his means of war production and his civilian population that did the producing.
To characterise that as immoral, evil and 'going too far' is to miss the point that war is all of those things anyway. There is no honourable war, just war. If your enemy has the means to bomb you then he will. If you don't want him to then don't go to war!
We had to win WW2, make no mistake, and we did. If we had not bombed Germany by night, and the USAAC by day, then we might not have. The lights might never have come on again in our time. You fight a war to win. That means acting immorally, often with evil intent, and of going too far. That's what it takes to win a war. That is what it took the Allies to win the war, that is why two A bombs were dropped. If you don't fight to win then you lose...simples!
...and the real war crimes that the Germans were committing would have continued. God knows where we would be today.
As you say, Chug, it was the art of the possible. We used every means at our disposal to win the war and that is the only way to win a war. Unless, of course you try to drag it out while you consider the morality of your actions or worry about how history might judge you. And, yes, I can see the irony there, if you choose to see it taht way.
As you say, Chug, it was the art of the possible. We used every means at our disposal to win the war and that is the only way to win a war. Unless, of course you try to drag it out while you consider the morality of your actions or worry about how history might judge you. And, yes, I can see the irony there, if you choose to see it taht way.
Having lost family members in the service of Bomber Command, I am loathe to criticise those brave airman. However it wasn't until the Mustangs ranged freely over the Reich, that the Germans knew the game was up. If Harris had been removed from his Command towards the end of the war, I doubt that Area policy would have changed that much. Britain was committed to Area bombing. However,Speer was the first to recognise the importance of Area bombing as a Second Front, taking millions of men and guns which would have otherwise been used on the Eastern Front. As an old Colonial member of the armed forces once told me: 'When the fighting is over, your country doesn't want to know you'.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10RealMan's point that the bombing was ‘proof of Allied intentions to defeat Germany’ was the political reason for continuing the bombing campaign. Stalin didn’t trust anyone at all and probably also considered his country was doing most of the fighting. Even though the Allied bombing was the only attack on Germany in the early part of the war, most of the total German casualties occurred on the Eastern front. A Russian friend of mine says until she moved to the West, she wasn’t aware that the rest of the Allies were involved in defeating Germany.
With hindsight it seems that at least some of the air resources should have been given to Coastal Command to help protect the Atlantic Convoys. Though less glamorous than the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic was of crucial importance in preventing defeat; with as high a casualty rate as Bomber Command in the merchant fleet. The U boats were Churchill’s greatest fear, we came very close to running out of food in early 1941.
With hindsight it seems that at least some of the air resources should have been given to Coastal Command to help protect the Atlantic Convoys. Though less glamorous than the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic was of crucial importance in preventing defeat; with as high a casualty rate as Bomber Command in the merchant fleet. The U boats were Churchill’s greatest fear, we came very close to running out of food in early 1941.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Also the recognition of fatigue in extra long flights so the sorties were reduced to 14 hours. Certainly the crews alertness would have been very low however the mere presence overhead might have had a deterrent effect.
In my opinion the Lanc was then totally unsuited for Maritime ops. It evolved as we know from a 1936 specification for a medium bomber, the Manchester. Through lack of foresight, the powers that be were unprepared for the submarine menace. The Liberators were the only aircraft able to plug the Atlantic gap as it had the range. As two Bomber pilots discussed with two Coastal pilots (on the sub war) in Jack Curries Mosquito Victory: 'Prevention is better than cure old boy!'
