Bomber Harris a 'colonial warmonger'
It’s fantastic to read well thought out and articulate explanations (for that is what they are) in response to “Jenns” deliberately provocative (by his own admission) posts.
I think they are obviously used to social media slanging matches rather than the type of discussions that are here.
It’s bizarre that considering the subject matter, the military forum always cheers me up, but it’s because of the tone of the interactions and the knowledge of the posters.
I think they are obviously used to social media slanging matches rather than the type of discussions that are here.
It’s bizarre that considering the subject matter, the military forum always cheers me up, but it’s because of the tone of the interactions and the knowledge of the posters.
veep :-
Are you saying that the RAF used poison gas in "Air Policing"? If so, where and when?
The solution the RAF arrived at was "Air policing", a policy which Air Commodore Lionel Charlton (who later resigned over the matter) described as using aerial bombs as a substitute for police truncheons. Crushing insurrection with the indiscriminate use of aerial bombs and poison gas against civilian homes.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it somewhat odd that anyone would dispute that Arthur Harris held colonialist views. In his time we had an Empire! An Empire to which Harris gladly contributed to maintenance and expansion of. There's little question of him being an ardent supporter of the British Empire.
I am not going to go into the ethics of toppling statues, or whether any individual does or does not deserve one, it's not a debate that I'm interested in. Discussions of Harris raise some interesting points on ethics, Airpower and RAF History though.
In the 1920s Italian theorist Giulio Douhet wrote The Command of the Air, a classic text on air power that laid the foundations for strategic bombing. Overlapping with interwar ideas on "Total War" and the increasing role of civilian efforts and morale in warfare, Douhet argued that in future conflicts air power ought to be used to bomb the enemy's cities and civilian targets. Douhet openly wrote that his intention was for airpower to be used to cause such misery and suffering that the enemy population would rise up and demand that the state and the military end the war. In essence, Terror bombing.
During the interwar period Douhet's particularly brutal school of thought was influential. It's known that the Germans took an interest, as did Curtis LeMay and others in the USAAF, and more significantly Sr Hugh Trenchard, Sir John Salmond and Arthur "Bomber" Harris. These ideas were instrumental in the RAF's Air Policing of Iraq. After a round of defence cuts (an eternal problem it seems) the government of the day asked Trenchard for a cheaper option to control Britain's new imperial mandate in Mesopotamia. The solution the RAF arrived at was "Air policing", a policy which Air CommodoreLionel Charlton (who later resigned over the matter) described as using aerial bombs as a substitute for police truncheons. Crushing insurrection with the indiscriminate use of aerial bombs and poison gas against civilian homes. After an incident in which British aircraft reportedly machine gunned women and children, Churchill himself protested to the Chief of Air Staff over the brutality of these methods and called for the court martial of those responsible. This was decidedly not the RAF's finest hour.
Harris, as a squadron leader saw firsthand and participated in the Iraq air campaign. He was not it's architect, but nevertheless he was enthusiastic participant in one of the darker chapters of British Colonialism. In that sense if he were described as a "Colonail Warmonger" to me I'd find it hard to say that it was untrue. His wartime actions though are perhaps more complicated. As the commander of Bomber Command, Harris applied Douhet's ideas against Germany, effectively hoping to prove Douhet correct, that Germany's will to fight could be undermined by the destruction of cities, and that his bomber fleets could end the war on their own. To those who condemn the use of Douhet's "Total War" methods which indiscriminately target German civilian and soldier alike in Dresden (or later the use of the Bomb on Japanese cities) the reply is usually that the allies acted only to end the war, and that the ends - the liberation of Europe and the end of the war in the Far East - justified the means. Nevertheless the killing of civilians as an end in itself during the war is a crime that we more often associate with the Germans, and it is uncomfortable to think that this was essentially the RAF's strategy..
None of this diminishes in any way the heroic acts of allied airmen, or of the Bomber Command crews Harris commanded. Like any historical figure though he was complex, and as hard as it is we do have to reconcile with the fact that the Arthur Harris who was the hero of Bomber Command is the same Arthur Harris who was instrumental in the "Air Policing" in Iraq and the destruction of Dresden.
I am not going to go into the ethics of toppling statues, or whether any individual does or does not deserve one, it's not a debate that I'm interested in. Discussions of Harris raise some interesting points on ethics, Airpower and RAF History though.
In the 1920s Italian theorist Giulio Douhet wrote The Command of the Air, a classic text on air power that laid the foundations for strategic bombing. Overlapping with interwar ideas on "Total War" and the increasing role of civilian efforts and morale in warfare, Douhet argued that in future conflicts air power ought to be used to bomb the enemy's cities and civilian targets. Douhet openly wrote that his intention was for airpower to be used to cause such misery and suffering that the enemy population would rise up and demand that the state and the military end the war. In essence, Terror bombing.
During the interwar period Douhet's particularly brutal school of thought was influential. It's known that the Germans took an interest, as did Curtis LeMay and others in the USAAF, and more significantly Sr Hugh Trenchard, Sir John Salmond and Arthur "Bomber" Harris. These ideas were instrumental in the RAF's Air Policing of Iraq. After a round of defence cuts (an eternal problem it seems) the government of the day asked Trenchard for a cheaper option to control Britain's new imperial mandate in Mesopotamia. The solution the RAF arrived at was "Air policing", a policy which Air CommodoreLionel Charlton (who later resigned over the matter) described as using aerial bombs as a substitute for police truncheons. Crushing insurrection with the indiscriminate use of aerial bombs and poison gas against civilian homes. After an incident in which British aircraft reportedly machine gunned women and children, Churchill himself protested to the Chief of Air Staff over the brutality of these methods and called for the court martial of those responsible. This was decidedly not the RAF's finest hour.
Harris, as a squadron leader saw firsthand and participated in the Iraq air campaign. He was not it's architect, but nevertheless he was enthusiastic participant in one of the darker chapters of British Colonialism. In that sense if he were described as a "Colonail Warmonger" to me I'd find it hard to say that it was untrue. His wartime actions though are perhaps more complicated. As the commander of Bomber Command, Harris applied Douhet's ideas against Germany, effectively hoping to prove Douhet correct, that Germany's will to fight could be undermined by the destruction of cities, and that his bomber fleets could end the war on their own. To those who condemn the use of Douhet's "Total War" methods which indiscriminately target German civilian and soldier alike in Dresden (or later the use of the Bomb on Japanese cities) the reply is usually that the allies acted only to end the war, and that the ends - the liberation of Europe and the end of the war in the Far East - justified the means. Nevertheless the killing of civilians as an end in itself during the war is a crime that we more often associate with the Germans, and it is uncomfortable to think that this was essentially the RAF's strategy..
None of this diminishes in any way the heroic acts of allied airmen, or of the Bomber Command crews Harris commanded. Like any historical figure though he was complex, and as hard as it is we do have to reconcile with the fact that the Arthur Harris who was the hero of Bomber Command is the same Arthur Harris who was instrumental in the "Air Policing" in Iraq and the destruction of Dresden.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: WAW
Age: 49
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great discussion so far.
Anyone mentioned that putting today's measure to judge people from the past is idiotic ignorance?
Like that Edward Colston. Slave trade was nothing unusual at his times. The fact that he supported schools, hospitals and almshouses was. That's why he deserves to be remembered.
Same with Harris. He was actually controversial even back then. But from my Polish perspective - Germany totally deserved the treatment, including civilians. Most people in the West have little idea about how Germans behaved here in Easter Europe including Russia. It wasn't like occupation of France. And German civilians was part of this and most of them were supporting Hitler until like late 1944.
Before WWII? I cannot comment of Harris from that times since I have no idea and I leave it to Britons
&
Anyone mentioned that putting today's measure to judge people from the past is idiotic ignorance?
Like that Edward Colston. Slave trade was nothing unusual at his times. The fact that he supported schools, hospitals and almshouses was. That's why he deserves to be remembered.
Same with Harris. He was actually controversial even back then. But from my Polish perspective - Germany totally deserved the treatment, including civilians. Most people in the West have little idea about how Germans behaved here in Easter Europe including Russia. It wasn't like occupation of France. And German civilians was part of this and most of them were supporting Hitler until like late 1944.
Before WWII? I cannot comment of Harris from that times since I have no idea and I leave it to Britons
&
"Slave trade was nothing unusual at his times" So was hanging people for stealing a lamb - just because it was "usual" doesn't mean it was right - even at the time.
Not only that, we produced TAFS for specific airfield targets ........
All four or five NATO Met teams at our upper echelon competed, judged against against the actuals, with the adjudication by CMetO SHAPE.
And yes, the Brits ALWAYS won, every week.
[And no women in my day, they were just coming on stream and very good they were indeed]
Now I’m not arguing that burning fossil fuels is directly comparable in terms of human suffering to my other two examples - maybe some would though! - but I am using the example to point out the real problem of casually ascribing ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to past actions, even when taking developing philosophies of the time into account.
I find it somewhat odd that anyone would dispute that Arthur Harris held colonialist views. In his time we had an Empire! An Empire to which Harris gladly contributed to maintenance and expansion of. There's little question of him being an ardent supporter of the British Empire.
I am not going to go into the ethics of toppling statues, or whether any individual does or does not deserve one, it's not a debate that I'm interested in. Discussions of Harris raise some interesting points on ethics, Airpower and RAF History though.
In the 1920s Italian theorist Giulio Douhet wrote The Command of the Air, a classic text on air power that laid the foundations for strategic bombing. Overlapping with interwar ideas on "Total War" and the increasing role of civilian efforts and morale in warfare, Douhet argued that in future conflicts air power ought to be used to bomb the enemy's cities and civilian targets. Douhet openly wrote that his intention was for airpower to be used to cause such misery and suffering that the enemy population would rise up and demand that the state and the military end the war. In essence, Terror bombing.
During the interwar period Douhet's particularly brutal school of thought was influential. It's known that the Germans took an interest, as did Curtis LeMay and others in the USAAF, and more significantly Sr Hugh Trenchard, Sir John Salmond and Arthur "Bomber" Harris. These ideas were instrumental in the RAF's Air Policing of Iraq. After a round of defence cuts (an eternal problem it seems) the government of the day asked Trenchard for a cheaper option to control Britain's new imperial mandate in Mesopotamia. The solution the RAF arrived at was "Air policing", a policy which Air CommodoreLionel Charlton (who later resigned over the matter) described as using aerial bombs as a substitute for police truncheons. Crushing insurrection with the indiscriminate use of aerial bombs and poison gas against civilian homes. After an incident in which British aircraft reportedly machine gunned women and children, Churchill himself protested to the Chief of Air Staff over the brutality of these methods and called for the court martial of those responsible. This was decidedly not the RAF's finest hour.
Harris, as a squadron leader saw firsthand and participated in the Iraq air campaign. He was not it's architect, but nevertheless he was enthusiastic participant in one of the darker chapters of British Colonialism. In that sense if he were described as a "Colonail Warmonger" to me I'd find it hard to say that it was untrue. His wartime actions though are perhaps more complicated. As the commander of Bomber Command, Harris applied Douhet's ideas against Germany, effectively hoping to prove Douhet correct, that Germany's will to fight could be undermined by the destruction of cities, and that his bomber fleets could end the war on their own. To those who condemn the use of Douhet's "Total War" methods which indiscriminately target German civilian and soldier alike in Dresden (or later the use of the Bomb on Japanese cities) the reply is usually that the allies acted only to end the war, and that the ends - the liberation of Europe and the end of the war in the Far East - justified the means. Nevertheless the killing of civilians as an end in itself during the war is a crime that we more often associate with the Germans, and it is uncomfortable to think that this was essentially the RAF's strategy..
None of this diminishes in any way the heroic acts of allied airmen, or of the Bomber Command crews Harris commanded. Like any historical figure though he was complex, and as hard as it is we do have to reconcile with the fact that the Arthur Harris who was the hero of Bomber Command is the same Arthur Harris who was instrumental in the "Air Policing" in Iraq and the destruction of Dresden.
I am not going to go into the ethics of toppling statues, or whether any individual does or does not deserve one, it's not a debate that I'm interested in. Discussions of Harris raise some interesting points on ethics, Airpower and RAF History though.
In the 1920s Italian theorist Giulio Douhet wrote The Command of the Air, a classic text on air power that laid the foundations for strategic bombing. Overlapping with interwar ideas on "Total War" and the increasing role of civilian efforts and morale in warfare, Douhet argued that in future conflicts air power ought to be used to bomb the enemy's cities and civilian targets. Douhet openly wrote that his intention was for airpower to be used to cause such misery and suffering that the enemy population would rise up and demand that the state and the military end the war. In essence, Terror bombing.
During the interwar period Douhet's particularly brutal school of thought was influential. It's known that the Germans took an interest, as did Curtis LeMay and others in the USAAF, and more significantly Sr Hugh Trenchard, Sir John Salmond and Arthur "Bomber" Harris. These ideas were instrumental in the RAF's Air Policing of Iraq. After a round of defence cuts (an eternal problem it seems) the government of the day asked Trenchard for a cheaper option to control Britain's new imperial mandate in Mesopotamia. The solution the RAF arrived at was "Air policing", a policy which Air CommodoreLionel Charlton (who later resigned over the matter) described as using aerial bombs as a substitute for police truncheons. Crushing insurrection with the indiscriminate use of aerial bombs and poison gas against civilian homes. After an incident in which British aircraft reportedly machine gunned women and children, Churchill himself protested to the Chief of Air Staff over the brutality of these methods and called for the court martial of those responsible. This was decidedly not the RAF's finest hour.
Harris, as a squadron leader saw firsthand and participated in the Iraq air campaign. He was not it's architect, but nevertheless he was enthusiastic participant in one of the darker chapters of British Colonialism. In that sense if he were described as a "Colonail Warmonger" to me I'd find it hard to say that it was untrue. His wartime actions though are perhaps more complicated. As the commander of Bomber Command, Harris applied Douhet's ideas against Germany, effectively hoping to prove Douhet correct, that Germany's will to fight could be undermined by the destruction of cities, and that his bomber fleets could end the war on their own. To those who condemn the use of Douhet's "Total War" methods which indiscriminately target German civilian and soldier alike in Dresden (or later the use of the Bomb on Japanese cities) the reply is usually that the allies acted only to end the war, and that the ends - the liberation of Europe and the end of the war in the Far East - justified the means. Nevertheless the killing of civilians as an end in itself during the war is a crime that we more often associate with the Germans, and it is uncomfortable to think that this was essentially the RAF's strategy..
None of this diminishes in any way the heroic acts of allied airmen, or of the Bomber Command crews Harris commanded. Like any historical figure though he was complex, and as hard as it is we do have to reconcile with the fact that the Arthur Harris who was the hero of Bomber Command is the same Arthur Harris who was instrumental in the "Air Policing" in Iraq and the destruction of Dresden.
Douhet's work wasn't translated into English for some years, and although it's clear that his work was read and understood by a number of RAF officers, he wasn't the driving force behind bombing and offensive air power in RAF thinking. Trenchard was already arguing in favour of offensive air power and the value of bombing when Douhet's work came out, and when Douhet was referenced in RAF Quarterly and The Hawk (the staff college journal), it was more in support of Trenchardian thought. Tammi Biddle, in particular, demonstrates the flow of RAF thought independent of Douhetian thought.
Trenchard, like Mitchell, was not Douhetian in approach when it came to bombing civilians. Douhet was all for it, but Trenchard and Mitchell accepted them as unfortunate likely casualties of a bombing offensive; that the destruction of the factories in which they worked and the towns in which they lived was likely (it was thought) to have a deleterious effect on their morale was seen as a bonus, but unlike Douhet, it wasn't the primary target set.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone mentioned that putting today's measure to judge people from the past is idiotic ignorance?
Like that Edward Colston. Slave trade was nothing unusual at his times. The fact that he supported schools, hospitals and almshouses was. That's why he deserves to be remembered.
Like that Edward Colston. Slave trade was nothing unusual at his times. The fact that he supported schools, hospitals and almshouses was. That's why he deserves to be remembered.
If he does deserve to be remembered then his whole life and work should be remembered, including his role in the slave trade, rather than the aspects that those who built the statue in 1895 deemed relevant.
And, to be blunt, the symbolic removal of the statue and wider recognition of Bristol's role in the slave trade is likely of more historical interest than yet another Victorian statue purporting to represent a great man of the city.
Churchill (as Air Minister, and then Sec of State for the Colonies) wanted the RAF to use gas, but RAF opinion was rather less keen. The files - from memory in the AIR 9 category at Kew - suggest that there were a fair few 'wrong type of weather'/'wrong type of terrain for gas to be effective' missives sent to Churchill. There was discussion of the use of lachrymatory gases (in the same file), but the efficacy of this was called into question as well. To date, with the exception of the personal recollections of a chap who served in Iraq in the 1920s/30s claiming that it was employed, there is no hard evidence that poison gas was employed; even if the files were weeded, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that gas wasn't a weapon the RAF was particularly eager to use in 'Col Pol' scenarios.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asturias, "......just because it was "usual" doesn't mean it was right - even at the time." Almost right, except the last four words, where you are clearly alluding to latter day thinking.
We cannot rewrite history using the moral and populist values of the present, colonising (aka subjugating) was a popular sovereign nation pastime historically, English, Dutch, French, Belgium, Italy, Spanish, Portuguese, German, etc.
We used to deport people for stealing a loaf of bread, it served a purpose then and when America decided it didn't like cups of tea anymore, we then deported them twice the distance to Australia because it still served the same purpose, which was right then.
Rewriting history against a modern context appeases no-one who was wronged at the time, we can't heal the pain of all the peoples taken into slavery, we can't vacate the new world(s) and give them back to their rightful owners, as always we have to look back and realise that we can do better.
We cannot rewrite history using the moral and populist values of the present, colonising (aka subjugating) was a popular sovereign nation pastime historically, English, Dutch, French, Belgium, Italy, Spanish, Portuguese, German, etc.
We used to deport people for stealing a loaf of bread, it served a purpose then and when America decided it didn't like cups of tea anymore, we then deported them twice the distance to Australia because it still served the same purpose, which was right then.
Rewriting history against a modern context appeases no-one who was wronged at the time, we can't heal the pain of all the peoples taken into slavery, we can't vacate the new world(s) and give them back to their rightful owners, as always we have to look back and realise that we can do better.
No Momoe - a lot of people were against slavery at the time - and also against the judicial code. they certainly weren't a majority (at least of voters) but there was definitely opposition.
But I'm against rewriting history and even more against removing every symbol - what is required is reasoned explanation
But I'm against rewriting history and even more against removing every symbol - what is required is reasoned explanation
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fast forward 200 years to a world in which burning fossil fuels has joined capital punishment and slavery in a list of things our predecessors once considered ‘usual’ but are now considered beyond the pale. Should posterity judge you (yes, you personally - let’s assume you have made some notable contribution to society) as being irredeemably tainted by the fact that you continued to use a car and take flights despite the harm this caused? I mean, it’s hardly as if you can claim ignorance of the effect such actions have: we justify our individual ‘wrong’ through custom, convenience and the comforting thought that everyone else is doing it because the alternatives are expensive, so you’d only be punishing yourself if you stopped. Would you be so deserving of future condemnation?
Now I’m not arguing that burning fossil fuels is directly comparable in terms of human suffering to my other two examples - maybe some would though! - but I am using the example to point out the real problem of casually ascribing ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to past actions, even when taking developing philosophies of the time into account.
Now I’m not arguing that burning fossil fuels is directly comparable in terms of human suffering to my other two examples - maybe some would though! - but I am using the example to point out the real problem of casually ascribing ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to past actions, even when taking developing philosophies of the time into account.
Last edited by veep; 22nd Jun 2020 at 15:50.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Churchill (as Air Minister, and then Sec of State for the Colonies) wanted the RAF to use gas, but RAF opinion was rather less keen. The files - from memory in the AIR 9 category at Kew - suggest that there were a fair few 'wrong type of weather'/'wrong type of terrain for gas to be effective' missives sent to Churchill. There was discussion of the use of lachrymatory gases (in the same file), but the efficacy of this was called into question as well. To date, with the exception of the personal recollections of a chap who served in Iraq in the 1920s/30s claiming that it was employed, there is no hard evidence that poison gas was employed; even if the files were weeded, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that gas wasn't a weapon the RAF was particularly eager to use in 'Col Pol' scenarios.
Veep:-
Me:-
veep :-
So the RAF did not use poison gas in Air Policing, nor it seems even wished to. Your other insinuation is that it used indiscriminate bombing in Air Policing. Where, when? The SOP was to drop leaflets in the local language warning that a village (for example) would be bombed the following day and that the occupants should therefore vacate it beforehand. Severe 'policing' to be sure, but that was to contain armed insurrection in a League of Nations mandated territory by the armed forces of the state authorised to enforce the mandate. But you speak of indiscriminate bombing, so again; where, when?
The solution the RAF arrived at was "Air policing", a policy which Air Commodore Lionel Charlton (who later resigned over the matter) described as using aerial bombs as a substitute for police truncheons. Crushing insurrection with the indiscriminate use of aerial bombs and poison gas against civilian homes
Are you saying that the RAF used poison gas in "Air Policing"? If so, where and when?
The RAF certainly advocated it's use, and I mentioned it only as theythey regarded the use of poison gas as compatible with their air policing doctrine and certainly requested that they be allowed to use it. Whether they actually were allowed to deploy poison gas is less clear, although the army used gas shells during the same time period for basically the same purpose.
Rather than simply existing within a society in which he indirectly benefited from slavery, Colston was instrumental in pioneering Britain's role in the slave trade. In modern day terms it's perhaps less comparable to owning a car or taking flights and more comparable to spearheading the efforts of a private corporation to commit genocide.
[The better modern analogy to Colston in my example is an oil baron. They are trying directly to destroy the planet in the way you seem to be claiming Colston was trying directly to kill slaves. And sure enough, there is already angst over the legacies of men such as Rockefeller, and artists are refusing oil company patronage. Yet still Asturias drives his car. Hell, even those artists still drive their cars! Best that none of them end up on a pedestal...]
Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd Jun 2020 at 17:47.
I've hesitated to bring this up in this context - after all "two wrongs don't make a right". However:
I think it would have been politically close to impossible for Churchill, Harris, and the other British leaders of the time to say "we're not going to bomb German cities" to a populace that had been living through the Blitz.
It's easy in peacetime to condemn certain wartime actions - it becomes completely different when the bullets are flying. Similarly, had Truman decided against using the A-Bomb against Japan, and an invasion had been necessary resulting in hundreds of thousands of American casualties, the American public would have crucified him (perhaps literally).
Preventing civilian casualties during war is a relatively recent concept - while specifically targeting civilians was uncommon, as a rule little attention was applied to avoiding civilian casualties .
Siege warfare was common place for centuries - and it's success was based on starving the populace - including civilians - of food and water until they were forced to surrender - often accompanied by indiscriminate shelling and the inevitable civilian casualties.
As weapons of war became more deadly, casualties to both combatants and civilians have increased correspondingly. It's only the advent of so called 'smart' weapons since WW II that has allowed the precision to largely avoid harming civilians (and those are still far from perfect).
I think it would have been politically close to impossible for Churchill, Harris, and the other British leaders of the time to say "we're not going to bomb German cities" to a populace that had been living through the Blitz.
It's easy in peacetime to condemn certain wartime actions - it becomes completely different when the bullets are flying. Similarly, had Truman decided against using the A-Bomb against Japan, and an invasion had been necessary resulting in hundreds of thousands of American casualties, the American public would have crucified him (perhaps literally).
Preventing civilian casualties during war is a relatively recent concept - while specifically targeting civilians was uncommon, as a rule little attention was applied to avoiding civilian casualties .
Siege warfare was common place for centuries - and it's success was based on starving the populace - including civilians - of food and water until they were forced to surrender - often accompanied by indiscriminate shelling and the inevitable civilian casualties.
As weapons of war became more deadly, casualties to both combatants and civilians have increased correspondingly. It's only the advent of so called 'smart' weapons since WW II that has allowed the precision to largely avoid harming civilians (and those are still far from perfect).
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread isn’t about Colston, it’s about Bomber Harris’s alleged views on colonialism. My response was to Asturias’s general argument on judging the past by today’s standards. He may have been answering a point which cited Colston as an off-topic example but didn’t limit his argument to that. Nice try at ‘cancelling’ my post by linking it to the current figure of opprobrium though
[The better modern analogy to Colston in my example is an oil baron. They are trying directly to destroy the planet in the way you seem to be claiming Colston was trying directly to kill slaves. And sure enough, there is already angst over the legacies of men such as Rockefeller, and artists are refusing oil company patronage. Yet still Asturias drives his car. Hell, even those artists still drive their cars! Best that none of them end up on a pedestal...]
[The better modern analogy to Colston in my example is an oil baron. They are trying directly to destroy the planet in the way you seem to be claiming Colston was trying directly to kill slaves. And sure enough, there is already angst over the legacies of men such as Rockefeller, and artists are refusing oil company patronage. Yet still Asturias drives his car. Hell, even those artists still drive their cars! Best that none of them end up on a pedestal...]
The oil baron analogy is inaccurate though. The Slave trade was not essential to society the way that oil is to us today. Far from it. Further the working to death of slaves was integral to the business model of the Royal African Company.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the RAF did not use poison gas in Air Policing, nor it seems even wished to. Your other insinuation is that it used indiscriminate bombing in Air Policing. Where, when? The SOP was to drop leaflets in the local language warning that a village (for example) would be bombed the following day and that the occupants should therefore vacate it beforehand. Severe 'policing' to be sure, but that was to contain armed insurrection in a League of Nations mandated territory by the armed forces of the state authorised to enforce the mandate. But you speak of indiscriminate bombing, so again; where, when?
As for indiscriminate, in his memoirs Air Commodore Lionel Charlton described it as such, at one point referring to it as close to wanton slaughter. Charlton and other contemporary accounts also refer to very large numbers of civilian casualties. So if the practice was as you described, to warn the occupants before commencing bombing, then it was ineffective at protecting civilians. Even if we were to accept that every measure was taken to prevent civilian casualties, (and dismiss these contemporary accounts) there is a limit to how humane punitive bombing raids can be.
