PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Bomber Harris a 'colonial warmonger' (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/633280-bomber-harris-colonial-warmonger.html)

kghjfg 22nd Jun 2020 08:32

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.


Chugalug2 22nd Jun 2020 08:38

veep :-

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?

DODGYOLDFART 22nd Jun 2020 10:05


Originally Posted by veep (Post 10817327)
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.

Do not forget that the Germans had already tried out Douhet's theory in the Spanish Civil War with it's aerial attack on Guernica. I believe this was the first example of a deliberate airborne attack on a civilian population. I also have some recollection that the Guernica attack inspired similar attacks by the Germans on Polish towns and cities during the first days of WWII. From then on it was seen by us and the Germans that civilians were fair game. In fact such an act by us (bombing Berlin) in August 1940 did change the course of the Battle of Britain from attacking our airfields to bombing our civilian population. The consequential Blitz caused somewhere close to 50,000 British civilian casualties and inspired Churchill to proclaim that vengeance would be ours many times over. Harris obeyed his command and carried it out in tall order.

spitfirek5054 22nd Jun 2020 10:23

Am not sure I think it was in the Middle East between the wars,I may be wrong though.

Sholayo 22nd Jun 2020 10:41

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 ;)

&

Asturias56 22nd Jun 2020 11:18

"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.

langleybaston 22nd Jun 2020 11:28


Originally Posted by veep (Post 10817331)
Interesting that you make this point. According to Harris's philosophy, everyone - civilian or soldier alike - is an equal target for bomber crews.

We certainly did understand that our forecasts could be used against WP targets, especially when I was a senior forecaster at JHQ.
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]

Easy Street 22nd Jun 2020 12:33


Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 10817590)
"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.

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.

Archimedes 22nd Jun 2020 13:05


Originally Posted by veep (Post 10817327)
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.

Trenchard wasn't influenced by Douhet. Slessor (I think it was) recounted how a junior officer once approached 'Boom' and asked him what he thought about Douhet. Trenchard fixed the young man with a quizzical gaze and replied 'Douhet who?'

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.

veep 22nd Jun 2020 15:00


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 10817473)
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.


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.
Colston was notable for two things really, his involvement in the British African Company in which he was responsible for enslaving perhaps a hundred thousand (and the death of a fairly high percentage of them), and his philanthropy in Bristol. In terms of judging him by the standards of his time though, the statue was built over one-hundred and fifty years after his death in 1895 and is pretty unremarkable (the Victorians built A LOT of statues). It portrays him as a one dimensional great man of the city for his philanthropy while not mentioning his life's work.

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.

Archimedes 22nd Jun 2020 15:11

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.


Momoe 22nd Jun 2020 15:11

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.

Asturias56 22nd Jun 2020 15:19

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

veep 22nd Jun 2020 15:21


Originally Posted by Easy Street (Post 10817638)
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.

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.

veep 22nd Jun 2020 15:25


Originally Posted by Archimedes (Post 10817765)
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.

That's interesting, I had the opposite impression, that the RAF and the air ministry were very keen to use gas but were ultimately not permitted to use it. But you seem far more familiar with this subject than me so I'll defer to you on that.

Chugalug2 22nd Jun 2020 16:28

Veep:-

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
Me:-

Are you saying that the RAF used poison gas in "Air Policing"? If so, where and when?
veep :-

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.
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?

Easy Street 22nd Jun 2020 17:22


Originally Posted by veep (Post 10817779)
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.

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 :ok:

[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...]

tdracer 22nd Jun 2020 17:25

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).

veep 23rd Jun 2020 01:09


Originally Posted by Easy Street (Post 10817874)
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 :ok:

[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...]

I think that's quite a harsh response to what I wrote, I have no intentions of "cancelling" anyone.

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.

veep 23rd Jun 2020 01:41


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 10817829)
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?

My understanding was that the RAF had used - or had intended to use - poison gas in Iraq. Archimedes seems to have done a little more research on this than me and they're of the opinion that the RAF did not use gas and likely did not intend to.

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.


MAINJAFAD 23rd Jun 2020 02:44


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 10817473)
veep :-


Are you saying that the RAF used poison gas in "Air Policing"? If so, where and when?

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.

RetiredBA/BY 23rd Jun 2020 08:08


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 10817879)
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).

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.

Chugalug2 23rd Jun 2020 08:30

veep :-


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.
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?

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.
again, Where and When, please?

longer ron 23rd Jun 2020 10:40

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.

brakedwell 23rd Jun 2020 10:59

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.

jmmoric 23rd Jun 2020 12:21


Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY (Post 10818311)
Interesting point about A weapons in Japan.

Having recently visited both Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums, (and the exact spot of the detonations).........

Must be quite a view from those museums,

Saint-Ex 23rd Jun 2020 12:39

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.

SLXOwft 23rd Jun 2020 12:39

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.”

MAINJAFAD 23rd Jun 2020 12:51


Originally Posted by Herod (Post 10817231)
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.

The population of Darwin knew what it was like to be bombed.

Herod 23rd Jun 2020 13:30

True, but I was talking about the Cuban Crisis, and nuclear weapons.

Bergerie1 23rd Jun 2020 15:47

That was I thought too

Chugalug2 23rd Jun 2020 22:48

SLXOwft :-

“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.
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!

Union Jack 23rd Jun 2020 23:25


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 10817473)
veep :-


Are you saying that the RAF used poison gas in "Air Policing"? If so, where and when?

Not exactly "Air Policing", but I am slightly surprised that no seems to recall that our greatly revered and much missed Danny42C no less was actively engaged in using poison gas in India, as related at https://www.pprune.org/military-avia...ww-ii-155.html His Post Nos 3071 and 3078 refer and, rather intriguingly since I have started this post by quoting him, I note at Post No 3080 that Chugalug himself states "Interesting that you were called upon to actually "gas" people Danny."

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

dr dre 24th Jun 2020 03:45


Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY (Post 10818311)
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.

Here's a pic of a wall panel from the Hiroshima Museum, I wouldn't say this is an admission by the Japanese they bought the devastation upon themselves:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....88f89b3c22.png

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.....

Chugalug2 24th Jun 2020 08:17

UJ :-


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
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.


Union Jack 24th Jun 2020 09:03

Chugalug - I was actually only making an observation, rather than a point, but appreciate the additional perspective that you have usefully and kindly provided.:ok:

Jack

Whinging Tinny 24th Jun 2020 09:47

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.

ElectroVlasic 24th Jun 2020 21:28


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 10812840)
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.

I don't think anyone was more well placed than RV Jones, and his book ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ost_Secret_War ) tells us that it certainly was known within government circles yet unwelcome news to the RAF in general and Harris in particular. Given HMG was expending much effort to improve the effectiveness of long range bombing via more complex and thus expensive radio navigation systems at a time of many urgent priorities, should tell you all you need to know.

Originally Posted by ihg (Post 10813818)
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."

Correct. He knew what he was doing and why he was doing it. This seems to lost on some here.

Chugalug2 24th Jun 2020 22:32

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.

megan 25th Jun 2020 00:10


The fact that Harris said that bombing alone could do it was sheer hyperbole. Did he really believe that
Have read it (forget book) that following a meeting with Churchill at the outbreak of war Harris was asked by someone the likely outcome of a bombing campaign and Harris replied to the effect that he had no idea as it hadn't been tried before, not withstanding the WWI Zeppelin raids on the UK. "First Blitz" by Neil Hanson is an interesting account of the WWI campaign.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.