Bomber Harris a 'colonial warmonger'
Stupid idea mentioned in a meeting by a Politician in 1919 that somebody dug up in a file at the National Archives when somebody else suggested use of tear gas in the air policing role. His first name was Winston. Because of this somebody wrote a book saying that the British actually used the stuff. In his own book, "Bomber Offensive" written in 1946-7, Harris clearly states that he was not out to kill Iraqis or Kurds if he could avoid it. He did a leaflet drops and loud speaker warnings first for the villages to get out their homes before he bombed them and used bombs dropped close to, but not on people to stop them going back. Likewise in Palestine in 1938, he used aircraft to lockdown villages with loudspeaker saying do not go outside your homes or you will be shot (with the added carrot of if you stay in your homes you will not be harmed). His views on Military armed support to the Civilian powers were quite simple. Run away if you can as it gives you no margin for error. Be too weak and you get sacked, Be too harsh and you will be castigated. He had fought in the North West Frontier, before that, but of course nobody has a easy time trying to run that neck of the wood even to this day.
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).
Having recently visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums, (and the exact spot of the detonations) it became clear that the Japanese admit, actually state in the museums, that they brought this devastation on themselves.
veep :-
The point I have been trying to make, Veep, is that you share with jenns a tendency to make statements of fact from mere impressions, allegations, and general condemnations of historical figures. As has been pointed out before, judge not lest ye be judged! I know that history is now treated simply as a means of expressing modern prejudices by laying them on supposed injustices from the past. One day you will be the past and you and your cohorts will also be condemned, so a little more introspection and a little less condemnation might be in order. To destroy a man's reputation because all the impressions, allegations, and condemnations tick the boxes that allow you to is mere mob rule. The same applied to the breaking of a paediatrician's windows by concerned individuals bent on routing out those who molest children.
So Harris no doubt observed the way that armed insurrection in a mandated territory could be greatly (and economically) reduced by the mere threat of bombing and drew a greatly exaggerated lesson of its efficacy. So what? It simply meant that as AOC-in-C of Bomber Command in WWII he believed in what he was doing! That was just as well, given the loss rate suffered even under the protection of night time. His was the only way of bringing the war to the enemy homeland which obliged them to make appropriate dispositions accordingly. It is my belief (and only that, not facts written on tablets of stone!) that led directly to ultimate Allied victory. Just as wars are not won by withdrawals, they are not won solely by defensive measures. If all the resources thrown at Bomber Command had instead been thrown at Coastal Command say, it would no doubt have had direct effect on the Battle of the Atlantic and cut some of the appalling losses suffered in that campaign, but I cannot see how that would have led to victory. Indeed it might have meant success for Germany on the Eastern Front and in successfully repelling us on D-Day. These are all what ifs, known unknowns perhaps, but the Bombing Campaign was an essential ingredient in the defeat of the scourge of fascism in my book. If that is so then so was Harris, and he should therefore be celebrated rather than condemned. Just saying....
Oh, PS, could you please elaborate on this statement of yours also?
again, Where and When, please?
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.
So Harris no doubt observed the way that armed insurrection in a mandated territory could be greatly (and economically) reduced by the mere threat of bombing and drew a greatly exaggerated lesson of its efficacy. So what? It simply meant that as AOC-in-C of Bomber Command in WWII he believed in what he was doing! That was just as well, given the loss rate suffered even under the protection of night time. His was the only way of bringing the war to the enemy homeland which obliged them to make appropriate dispositions accordingly. It is my belief (and only that, not facts written on tablets of stone!) that led directly to ultimate Allied victory. Just as wars are not won by withdrawals, they are not won solely by defensive measures. If all the resources thrown at Bomber Command had instead been thrown at Coastal Command say, it would no doubt have had direct effect on the Battle of the Atlantic and cut some of the appalling losses suffered in that campaign, but I cannot see how that would have led to victory. Indeed it might have meant success for Germany on the Eastern Front and in successfully repelling us on D-Day. These are all what ifs, known unknowns perhaps, but the Bombing Campaign was an essential ingredient in the defeat of the scourge of fascism in my book. If that is so then so was Harris, and he should therefore be celebrated rather than condemned. Just saying....
Oh, PS, could you please elaborate on this statement of yours also?
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.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 23rd Jun 2020 at 09:09. Reason: Added PS
I have read a couple of autobiographies by RAF Pilots involved in the NW Frontier 'Police Actions' - the RAF went to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid unnecessary casualties amongst villagers/populace etc.
Before a Shackleton bombing attack on the Jebel Akhdar in Muscat in 1959, one of our Pembrokes was sent to warn the locals. Unfortunately it was hit by .5" machine gun fire, which smashed up the tape recorder and punctured an engine oil tank. The Pembroke, which was being flown by a Polish born Master Pilot, made a forced landing below the mountain at Firq. The Jebel Akhdar was then stormed successfully by the SAS. I heard from the local people living on the mountain in 1959 that great care had been taken to eliminate Arab casualties and nobody had died. Obviously the RAF still went to extraordinary lengths to avoid unnecessary casualties. Only death in the conflict was an 8 Sqn Venom pilot who crashed in to the mountain during an attack.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He had an almost impossible job but stood firmly against the appalling opposition to any new ideas held by those "in power". Without his support Barnes Wallis would never been able to complete the Dam Buster raid.
The RAF operation in Mesopotamia was to use the modern term about “Shock and Awe”. By showing that nowhere was beyond reach, it was hoped the rebels would realise the futility of their struggle and stop. To a large extent it worked. Harris appears to have set about it in a thorough and, by the standards of the time, humane manner. It may have been naïve to expect the warnings to be complied with, but a land campaign would have been long and bloody on both sides with many more civilians unintentionally killed. Chalton was repelled by the consequences of an attack the victims of which he saw in a hospital. I doubt he had direct knowledge of the events that caused them. Even today the laws of war expect the defending party to take a degree of responsibility for the protection and evacuation of civilians.
Air Policing makes it sound like bullying a few dozen recalcitrant tribesmen, it wasn’t. Winston Churchill’s view was it would take over 100,000 British and Indian Army troops to defeat the rebellions by the same number of armed Kurdish and Arab tribesmen. It was achieved by 14,000 and two squadrons. About 9000 Iraqis were killed and circa 500 Imperial troops were killed and 11 aircraft “destroyed behind enemy lines”.
It has been said that one of the reasons the Roman Empire lasted so long, unlike the British, was their policy of co-opting local elites. Not only to govern and tax their homeland but also into central government. Had colonists been sitting in parliament, the American rebellion might not have happened. Having freed them from the Ottoman yoke, Britain had tried to impose its own officials and rules on the cradle of civilisation, not unsurprisingly many took against it. Britain then imposed an alien (though Arab) king, the consequences of these mistakes are to be seen in Iraq and the wider Middle East today. The reponsibility for that lay with politicians not airmen, soldiers or sailors.
Harris’s statue and others have value if they prompt us to examine and debate history. For that reason alone, they should stand.
As I said to a member of this forum “As a history student I was taught to examine the evidence and come to a dispassionate conclusion discarding the filter of current mores; I am (perhaps unfortunately) irritated when others do not.”
Air Policing makes it sound like bullying a few dozen recalcitrant tribesmen, it wasn’t. Winston Churchill’s view was it would take over 100,000 British and Indian Army troops to defeat the rebellions by the same number of armed Kurdish and Arab tribesmen. It was achieved by 14,000 and two squadrons. About 9000 Iraqis were killed and circa 500 Imperial troops were killed and 11 aircraft “destroyed behind enemy lines”.
It has been said that one of the reasons the Roman Empire lasted so long, unlike the British, was their policy of co-opting local elites. Not only to govern and tax their homeland but also into central government. Had colonists been sitting in parliament, the American rebellion might not have happened. Having freed them from the Ottoman yoke, Britain had tried to impose its own officials and rules on the cradle of civilisation, not unsurprisingly many took against it. Britain then imposed an alien (though Arab) king, the consequences of these mistakes are to be seen in Iraq and the wider Middle East today. The reponsibility for that lay with politicians not airmen, soldiers or sailors.
Harris’s statue and others have value if they prompt us to examine and debate history. For that reason alone, they should stand.
As I said to a member of this forum “As a history student I was taught to examine the evidence and come to a dispassionate conclusion discarding the filter of current mores; I am (perhaps unfortunately) irritated when others do not.”
Asturias56 I'd agree there, but to have never heard of the Holocaust, or the Cuban Crisis. In '62 I was a 15 year-old, living in Australia (probably one of the places that might not have been bombed) and I remember it. I would expect my contempories and older who were living in UK would remember it very well.
That was I thought too
SLXOwft :-
That's not how the new order works though. The words Colonial Warmonger are enough to condemn you, guilty or not. The perception alone suffices. An entire armed service can be characterised by the words :-
Never mind that they are unsubstantiated, they exist, that is enough! That is the new order now, and it reminds us that is how the old order worked too. An anonymous denunciation, a hammering on the door at 0300 and you were gone, never to be seen again. Whether their armbands bore swastikas or hammers and sickles it was all the same. As a cynical old East German general once explained, when asked how come he was now a senior member of Party Security, having had a similar post in the Gestapo, "Left Wing, Right Wing, they all need policemens!".
Irritate you? It scares the life out of me!
“As a history student I was taught to examine the evidence and come to a dispassionate conclusion discarding the filter of current mores; I am (perhaps unfortunately) irritated when others do not.”
That's not how the new order works though. The words Colonial Warmonger are enough to condemn you, guilty or not. The perception alone suffices. An entire armed service can be characterised by the words :-
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.
Irritate you? It scares the life out of me!
Oh! I almost forgot to say that the poison gas in question, namely mustard gas, was being dropped for trial purposes only, admittedly in quite alarming circumstances.
Jack
Interesting point about A weapons in Japan.
Having recently visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums, (and the exact spot of the detonations) it became clear that the Japanese admit, actually state in the museums, that they brought this devastation on themselves.
Having recently visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums, (and the exact spot of the detonations) it became clear that the Japanese admit, actually state in the museums, that they brought this devastation on themselves.
The Hiroshima Museum is a far lot better then the Yushukan Museum in Tokyo, the ultra nationalistic one where they claim the Chinese civilians in Nanking in 1937 basically got what they deserved.....
UJ :-
If your point is that the RAF were preparing to drop poison gas operationally following trials (by Danny in India in this case), then I agree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were yet to happen and the preoccupation was for the upcoming challenge of the invasion of Japan. All the ducks had to be in a row, including the possible use of war gasses, just as they were 5 years previously when the expected invasion was to be of our own homeland. We had the gasses and we were prepared to use them against invading German forces. It seems that the same leader who called for that also wanted its use in Iraq. In each case the RAF if so ordered would no doubt have used it. It wasn't and it didn't. That is the point, Jack. Not that it wasn't considered but that it wasn't used, contrary to the slur published by veet.
As to Japan admitting anything about its culpability in initiating aggressive war, let alone bringing about its own demise, it never has. Germany atoned for its actions and became a flourishing democracy whereas Japan didn't. Instead of being the guilty party it has successfully assumed the mantle of victim. With the rise of a militant China seeking revenge for the ravaging of its people and homeland by the IJA it may live to regret such self justification.
Oh! I almost forgot to say that the poison gas in question, namely mustard gas, was being dropped for trial purposes only, admittedly in quite alarming circumstances.
Jack
Jack
As to Japan admitting anything about its culpability in initiating aggressive war, let alone bringing about its own demise, it never has. Germany atoned for its actions and became a flourishing democracy whereas Japan didn't. Instead of being the guilty party it has successfully assumed the mantle of victim. With the rise of a militant China seeking revenge for the ravaging of its people and homeland by the IJA it may live to regret such self justification.
Chugalug - I was actually only making an observation, rather than a point, but appreciate the additional perspective that you have usefully and kindly provided.
Jack
Jack
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nearby
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britain and America were prepared to use chemical weapons If the D-Day invasion and after were opposed by Germany using the same method.
Gas production was ramped up in the lead up to the invasion - part of Operation Bolero and stored at 5 FFDs (Forward Filling Depots) at various points around the UK. Certain RAF Stirling and Boston squadrons were trained to deliver the stuff if the need arose.
Chugalug2:
Your comment about the Japanese playing the victim card hits the nail squarely on the head. You see it every August and it doesn't help when you have a right wing revisionist government (LDP) whose leader wishes to change Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (the Peace Clause) to allow Japan to move from a solely defensive force (SDF) to an offensive one. They have also been successful in having school text books revised to tone down the aggressive stance and atrocities committed in the name of the Emperor.
Dr Dre:
I totally agree with you having visited the Peace Museum at Hiroshima. Unless they have changed there stance there, there is no mention of the lead up to why American resorted to the atomic bomb.
It is the same on the battlefields of Okinawa, where the victim card is played out as Chugalug2 said above. You will hardly find any mention of why so many civilians died not from the American attacks but by other means there as well as on Saipan (Marpi Point suicides being the famous media one).
Yasukuni Shrine is dedicated to the Japanese who died in various wars in the service of Japan. It's problem to many is, it houses the 'souls' of over a thousand convicted war criminals including 14 Class A ones,who were secretly interned starting in the 50s. The attached museum (Yūshūkan) is as said, a nationalistic one and it is no surprise when various leaders and members of the government offer their ritual prayers there much to the ire of Japan's neighbours
There are Japanese historians who research and publish a more balanced view of what actually occurred, but they are in the minority.
Gas production was ramped up in the lead up to the invasion - part of Operation Bolero and stored at 5 FFDs (Forward Filling Depots) at various points around the UK. Certain RAF Stirling and Boston squadrons were trained to deliver the stuff if the need arose.
Chugalug2:
Your comment about the Japanese playing the victim card hits the nail squarely on the head. You see it every August and it doesn't help when you have a right wing revisionist government (LDP) whose leader wishes to change Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (the Peace Clause) to allow Japan to move from a solely defensive force (SDF) to an offensive one. They have also been successful in having school text books revised to tone down the aggressive stance and atrocities committed in the name of the Emperor.
Dr Dre:
I totally agree with you having visited the Peace Museum at Hiroshima. Unless they have changed there stance there, there is no mention of the lead up to why American resorted to the atomic bomb.
It is the same on the battlefields of Okinawa, where the victim card is played out as Chugalug2 said above. You will hardly find any mention of why so many civilians died not from the American attacks but by other means there as well as on Saipan (Marpi Point suicides being the famous media one).
Yasukuni Shrine is dedicated to the Japanese who died in various wars in the service of Japan. It's problem to many is, it houses the 'souls' of over a thousand convicted war criminals including 14 Class A ones,who were secretly interned starting in the 50s. The attached museum (Yūshūkan) is as said, a nationalistic one and it is no surprise when various leaders and members of the government offer their ritual prayers there much to the ire of Japan's neighbours
There are Japanese historians who research and publish a more balanced view of what actually occurred, but they are in the minority.
Last edited by Whinging Tinny; 25th Jun 2020 at 00:10.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things are always clearer with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. There is considerable evidence that the strategic bombing campaign was not an efficient use of resources - but few knew or even suspected that during the war.
Revisionist history is just that - applying modern standard to historical events gives a distorted view of what happened and why. Similar revisionist history has been applied to the US dropping the A-bombs on Japan ('Japan wasn't a threat, they were about to surrender anyway, etc.'). Given that my dad was training for the invasion of Japan when the dropped the bombs - he was going to be a platoon leader on the second wave of the initial landings and had been told to expect 80% casualties - I remain unconvinced that we didn't need to drop the bombs. In fact a pretty good argument can be made that dropping the bombs and preventing the need for an invasion of the mainland saved move lives - both Japanese and Americans - than any single act in history.
Revisionist history is just that - applying modern standard to historical events gives a distorted view of what happened and why. Similar revisionist history has been applied to the US dropping the A-bombs on Japan ('Japan wasn't a threat, they were about to surrender anyway, etc.'). Given that my dad was training for the invasion of Japan when the dropped the bombs - he was going to be a platoon leader on the second wave of the initial landings and had been told to expect 80% casualties - I remain unconvinced that we didn't need to drop the bombs. In fact a pretty good argument can be made that dropping the bombs and preventing the need for an invasion of the mainland saved move lives - both Japanese and Americans - than any single act in history.
In October 1943 Air Chief MarshalArthur Harris, C-in-C of RAF Bomber Command writing to his superior urged the British government to be honest to the public regarding the purpose of the bombing campaign and openly announce that:
"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive ... should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany ... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
EV, it's not lost on me. Harris certainly believed in what he was doing, how else could he go on sending his crews out night after night not doing so? What alternative was there? The bombing accuracy was of the order of miles, though techniques and technical advances tightened it up gradually. Practically speaking though, night bombing meant area bombing which meant bombing cities. So Harris made a virtue of a necessity and made the blood curdling statements as quoted, even invoking the old testament to that effect. He was Bomber Command's Commander in Chief and had to put fire into the bellies of his old lags night after night despite their losses, because night after night they were laying waste to Germany's cities and killing the inhabitants in their tens of thousands. What was he supposed to say, "I deeply regret that so many civilians are dying as a result of our bombing but we will go on bombing anyway"?
That is the dilemma of war, the technology determines how it is fought. Invent the machine gun and accurate artillery, and you get the carnage of the Western Front. Invent the 4-engined bomber and you get cities reduced to rubble. That had to be countered by Germany, resulting in massive demands on man-power and munitions that were badly needed on the Eastern Front. Speer (if you believe that persuasive individual) thought the night bombing more damaging than the day, and that both combined to create a second front. Are you saying that all that should have been abandoned to avoid civilian deaths? To do what exactly? The idea was to win the war before Germany did. Some would say it was a close enough run thing as it was. Without Bomber Command my money would be on the latter outcome. The fact that Harris said that bombing alone could do it was sheer hyperbole. Did he really believe that? I've no idea, but anyway what difference did it make other than to ensure that you had an utterly determined man at the helm?
War is terrible and the only certain way to conduct it is with every means at hand, in order to achieve victory all the sooner. This seems to be lost on some here.
That is the dilemma of war, the technology determines how it is fought. Invent the machine gun and accurate artillery, and you get the carnage of the Western Front. Invent the 4-engined bomber and you get cities reduced to rubble. That had to be countered by Germany, resulting in massive demands on man-power and munitions that were badly needed on the Eastern Front. Speer (if you believe that persuasive individual) thought the night bombing more damaging than the day, and that both combined to create a second front. Are you saying that all that should have been abandoned to avoid civilian deaths? To do what exactly? The idea was to win the war before Germany did. Some would say it was a close enough run thing as it was. Without Bomber Command my money would be on the latter outcome. The fact that Harris said that bombing alone could do it was sheer hyperbole. Did he really believe that? I've no idea, but anyway what difference did it make other than to ensure that you had an utterly determined man at the helm?
War is terrible and the only certain way to conduct it is with every means at hand, in order to achieve victory all the sooner. This seems to be lost on some here.
The fact that Harris said that bombing alone could do it was sheer hyperbole. Did he really believe that
