Remembering RAF Bomber Command

[buctootim]

I am sick to death with the hand-wringing and revisionist history that seems to be prevelant in this country. It is no good looking back at history with modern eyes. You have to try and put yourself in the shoes of those that lived through this horror. Revisionists are not realists.

 

 

"The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

 

Winston Churchill 28th March 1945

[Wes Tender]

I am sick to death with the hand-wringing and revisionist history that seems to be prevelant in this country. The war was started by Hitler and his National Socialists. They wanted German domination of Europe and further afield. We were fighting for our very survival and we did what ever we could to defeat an evil enemy. It is no good looking back at history with modern eyes. You have to try and put yourself in the shoes of those that lived through this horror. Revisionists are not realists.

 

Ditto. Next we'll be told that the atomic bombs that we dropped on the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified too.

[alpine_saint]

"The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

 

Winston Churchill 28th March 1945

 

All that statement indicates is he wants the bombing to be more effective and efficient with regard to winning the war. I dont see a moral quandry being really suggested by this comment. In fact, he refers to missions like Dresden as "impressive"

[buctootim]

All that statement indicates is he wants the bombing to be more effective and efficient with regard to winning the war. I dont see a moral quandry being really suggested by this comment. In fact, he refers to missions like Dresden as "impressive"

 

Yes he wanted the bombing to be more effective in winning the war. Bombing that helps you win a just war causes no moral quandary. Bombing which is "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction" does.

[alpine_saint]

Yes he wanted the bombing to be more effective in winning the war. Bombing that helps you win a just war causes no moral quandary. Bombing which is "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction" does.

 

Imo you are reading too much into Churchills comments. He didnt say "acts of terror" and "wanton destuction" wouldnt help win the war, he just said focusing on things like oil and communications would be more effective. I think the use of the word "mere" was not intended to belittle or question the strategy, but to emphasise relative effectiveness in ending the war compared to strikes on oil and communications. I dont see a moral question at all, just an effectiveness question.

 

So, the Allies woke up to a more effective apporach - going after oil storage and railway yards for example. They accordingly switched their emphasis in 1943-44 and accordingly the results were more effective, accepted. Discovering a better approach later does not invalidate the earlier approach. The moral dimension has imo been added later for questionable political purposes.

[buctootim]

Imo you are reading too much into Churchills comments. He didnt say "acts of terror" and "wanton destuction" wouldnt help win the war, he just said focusing on things like oil and communications would be more effective. I think the use of the word "mere" was not intended to belittle or question the strategy, but to emphasise relative effectiveness in ending the war compared to strikes on oil and communications. I dont see a moral question at all, just an effectiveness question.

 

The words 'wanton destruction' are key to his thoughts about the bombing. He knew what he was saying. Definitions of 'wanton' from dictionary.com. I doubt OE dictionary is different

 

1. done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably: a wanton attack; wanton cruelty. 2. deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for; headstrong; willful: Why

3. without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc.; careless; reckless.

[alpine_saint]

The words 'wanton destruction' are key to his thoughts about the bombing. He knew what he was saying. Definitions of 'wanton' from dictionary.com. I doubt OE dictionary is different

 

1. done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably: a wanton attack; wanton cruelty. 2. deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for; headstrong; willful: Why

3. without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc.; careless; reckless.

 

Happy to go through this step-by-step.

 

Yes, it was malicious; it was with extreme prejudice

 

Yes, it was deliberate

 

No, it was not without motive

 

No, it was not reckless or careless

 

Was uncalled for / without regard for what is right / humane ? Suppose these are the points that have been discussed over the last 60 years. It appears you and I disagree on them, however.

 

For me this is all moot. These words may come from Churchill, but he approved the strategy in the first place, and Harris was ordered to implement it. Not Harris's fault if Churchill suddently got cold feet. The orginal intention of this thread was a b*tchfest at Harris, remember ?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The orginal intention of this thread was a b*tchfest at Harris, remember ?

 

Reread the OP and then tell me how often Arthur Harris is even mentioned.

[alpine_saint]

Reread the OP and then tell me how often Arthur Harris is even mentioned.

 

Ok, take it back. Sorry.

 

I perhaps should have written that this thread has been used as an opportunity to b*tch about Harris.

[derry]

Harris was an Air Vice Marshall AOC Bomber Command only. There was plenty of senior officers and committees that could dictate policy. Then there was the political overview micromanaged by Churchill. Does anybody really make the argument that Harris for one minute could do whatever he wanted. He couldn't even stop the Dam Busters raid because he was overruled. Dresden was attacked allegedly after pressure from the Soviets.

 

Harris was hung out to dry by the politicians who tried to distance themselves from decisions they had made but after the war wanted to rewrite their part in it. Military officers are easy victims for unscrupulous politicians because they are unable to defend themselves properly.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Harris was an Air Vice Marshall AOC Bomber Command only. There was plenty of senior officers and committees that could dictate policy. Then there was the political overview micromanaged by Churchill. Does anybody really make the argument that Harris for one minute could do whatever he wanted. He couldn't even stop the Dam Busters raid because he was overruled. Dresden was attacked allegedly after pressure from the Soviets.

 

Harris was hung out to dry by the politicians who tried to distance themselves from decisions they had made but after the war wanted to rewrite their part in it. Military officers are easy victims for unscrupulous politicians because they are unable to defend themselves properly.

 

Arthur Harris was a man of enormous power and influence, the ultimate 'Bomber Baron'. Attempting to portray him has a mere functionary passing on orders from above is a gross distortion of the historical truth. The power a military man wields is not always a simple matter of the rank they happen to hold. Nominally Harris was under the direct command of Air Chief Marshall Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff. However the relationship between these two senior officers was problematic to put it mildly. Harris had the 'ear' of the Prime Minister - then as now those with direct access to the seat of power can often possess a level of influence and independence of action far above that which their rank may have otherwise entitled them to.

 

Harris would do his damnedest to run his Command as he saw fit, and if Portal ordered him to pursue a course of action that he happened to disagreed with, he was not above going over his superior officer's head. Just two examples how he regarded Bomber Command as his personal fiefdom was his extreme reluctance to abandon the failed Battle of Berlin in order that Bomber Command might participate in the preparations for Operation Overlord - he only gave way when the Supreme Commander (Eisenhower) insisted at the highest level on the maximum level of bomber support. Later in 1944 even after the USAAF Strategic Bomber force had conclusively proved that precision daylight bombing was having a dramatic effect on German oil production, he still virtually ignored a direct order and only half-heartedly joined in with this profoundly important mission. His bombers had more important work churning the rubble of ruined (and virtually defenceless by this stage) German cities of course.

 

The picture of Arthur Harris I retain in my minds eye is of him sitting in his office at RAF High Wycombe selecting (at whim almost) which target city he was going to devastate that night, this is not the image of a minor official only following orders. The truth is nearly always a shade of gray rather than simple matter of black and white certainty. It is true that the AOC Bomber Command was certainly not solely responsible for the policy of area bombing, but Sir Arthur Harris as the hapless victim of history?

 

I don't think so.

Edited 4 July, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[derry]

You aren't saying anything about Harris that isn't well known. Single minded and sometimes got it wrong. The politicians ran for it as usual. The pilots I flew with wouldn't be wringing their hands over the bombs they dropped or the people they killed. The Germans were the enemy who tried to take over the world in the most vile and ruthless way, they started the bombing and they got their come uppance in spades. The Germans thought they would dish it out with immunity but were wrong.

 

They were lucky the war ended when it did because two or three atom bombs would probably have done as much damage as the whole bombing campaign. The politicians had no problem using them either.

[alpine_saint]

You aren't saying anything about Harris that isn't well known. Single minded and sometimes got it wrong. The politicians ran for it as usual. The pilots I flew with wouldn't be wringing their hands over the bombs they dropped or the people they killed. The Germans were the enemy who tried to take over the world in the most vile and ruthless way, they started the bombing and they got their come uppance in spades. The Germans thought they would dish it out with immunity but were wrong.

 

They were lucky the war ended when it did because two or three atom bombs would probably have done as much damage as the whole bombing campaign. The politicians had no problem using them either.

 

Completely with your last two posts.

 

Chapel End Charlie, I have this impression that your feelings towards Harris are tainted by something. I dont know what, and its your business of course.

[derry]

Completely with your last two posts.

 

Chapel End Charlie, I have this impression that your feelings towards Harris are tainted by something. I dont know what, and its your business of course.

 

When I started flying at the end of the sixties most of my instructors and then airline captains were virtually all ex wartime RAF. Nearly all of them had gallantry medals. A lot of them with bars and more than one medal. Some served in the battle of Britain, others from before the war in Bomber command. One was with Bader in 242, another a navigator on the Dams with 617, several aces, plenty of multi tour and an American B17 pilot, a glider pilot at the crossing of the Rhine (transferred after completing a Lancaster course due shortage of GPs), a C47 pilot who was at Arnhem, ex POWs, several Coastal Command Sunderland pilots. To a man I never heard one of them criticise the conduct of the war. All of them regularly opened up to me regarding their experiences. None of them appeared to be affected by any feelings the funny stories were told at the same time as the really hairy or tragic events. They had survived, one great friend from 1937 Czech AF, 1939 French AF, 1940 - 45 RAF, CAF 45 - RAF 48 - sixties, an ace flew right through and Spitfires from 40 - 45. They had developed an immunity that allowed them to talk about the dead in the same way they talked about the living.

 

It was a privilege to fly with these guys and hear their stories. It is grossly disrespectful to try and rewrite history and criticise from opinions in films and books. They did it we only read about it. Bomber Command and the 8th AF devastated Germany and forced it to use enormous resources in Germany that couldn't be used against the allies and thereby weakened the opposition met by the armies. Anybody who tries to argue differently from where I'm standing has a left wing pacifist agenda.

Edited 5 July, 2012 by derry

[Thedelldays]

I find it incredible how we can sit here and mock the actions in the war.

 

Yes we devastated Germany. Yes it was harsh. Yes, it was all out war

 

Easy to look at the politicians of the time and say they turned their back on them for whatever reason . But the politicians approved the tactic, they also could see the end of the war was on sight and started to position themselves politically etc

 

I doff my hat to anyone that serves for king and country at the time

 

Put it this way, if we never did what we did, thee Germans would have had no issue of destroying Britain. And they would have

[derry]

I find it incredible how we can sit here and mock the actions in the war.

 

Yes we devastated Germany. Yes it was harsh. Yes, it was all out war

 

Easy to look at the politicians of the time and say they turned their back on them for whatever reason . But the politicians approved the tactic, they also could see the end of the war was on sight and started to position themselves politically etc

 

I doff my hat to anyone that serves for king and country at the time

 

Put it this way, if we never did what we did, thee Germans would have had no issue of destroying Britain. And they would have

 

Way I see it. eg V1s and V2s.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well we seem to have come full circle and have returned to recycling familiar 'they started it' type arguments. It would seem that Christopher Hitchens was indeed right afterall - while that last veterans of the Bomber Command are still with us, it is almost impossible for this country to have a truly "grown up" debate on this emotive subject.

 

For the record I'm very far from being some sort of left wing pacifist, nor do I have any hidden agenda against Sir Arthur Harris. As ever I merely attempt to speak the truth as I see it. But engaging in the usual SWF slanging match with those who hold a different view seems undesirable because such a argument would inevitably descent into becoming disrespectful to the memory of the 55,000.

 

So I'll leave it here and ask anyone reading this to believe me that disrespecting the memory of the victims of area bombing - either aircrew or civilian - is very last thing I would ever seek to do.

[aintforever]

I read a book from one of Bomber Command recently and these guys were absolute heros. The Spitfire pilots got all the praise but the bombers also played a vital role in winning the war.

 

Their lives were unique, they could be out in a Lincoln pub having a nice relaxing pint then hours later they would be in absolute hell, over the enemy homeland, inches from death. Then hours later they would be back in Lincoln having a fry-up.

 

You have to admire their bravery and talent.

[derry]

I read a book from one of Bomber Command recently and these guys were absolute heros. The Spitfire pilots got all the praise but the bombers also played a vital role in winning the war.

 

Their lives were unique, they could be out in a Lincoln pub having a nice relaxing pint then hours later they would be in absolute hell, over the enemy homeland, inches from death. Then hours later they would be back in Lincoln having a fry-up. You have to admire their bravery and talent.

 

Some of them! The others were having their quarters emptied ready for the replacements. 60% casualties and POWs. It takes some believing and the accidents were a regular occurrence. A friend took off in a Manchester got a fire in one engine shut it down and landed wheels up straight ahead down the main runway of the next airfield. The Group Captain tore out in his car and bollocked him for closing his runway. He wasn't bothered as he was lucky to survive.

[alpine_saint]

Well we seem to have come full circle and have returned to recycling familiar 'they started it' type arguments. It would seem that Christopher Hitchens was indeed right afterall - while that last veterans of the Bomber Command are still with us, it is almost impossible for this country to have a truly "grown up" debate on this emotive subject.

 

For the record I'm very far from being some sort of left wing pacifist, nor do I have any hidden agenda against Sir Arthur Harris. As ever I merely attempt to speak the truth as I see it. But engaging in the usual SWF slanging match with those who hold a different view seems undesirable because such a argument would inevitably descent into becoming disrespectful to the memory of the 55,000.

 

So I'll leave it here and ask anyone reading this to believe me that disrespecting the memory of the victims of area bombing - either aircrew or civilian - is very last thing I would ever seek to do.

 

So anyone who refuses to succumb to newthink about the actions of Bomber command is childish, are they ? Seems to me you are reducing this to a slanging match; I thought ( untiil now ) this discussion had been well above the usual standard on SWF in the maturity stakes, to be honest.

[OldNick]

 

So I'll leave it here and ask anyone reading this to believe me that disrespecting the memory of the victims of area bombing - either aircrew or civilian - is very last thing I would ever seek to do.

Sadly it seems to me you have already done that.

[buctootim]

Sadly it seems to me you have already done that.

 

No he hasnt. Nothing anyone has posted is critical of anybody who flew those bombing missions. Chapel End Charlie made thoughtful, moving even, posts. He has got posturing in return - claims to speak for others - in the usual TSW manner.

[alpine_saint]

No he hasnt. Nothing anyone has posted is critical of anybody who flew those bombing missions. Chapel End Charlie made thoughtful, moving even, posts. He has got posturing in return - claims to speak for others - in the usual TSW manner.

 

What a load of b*ll*cks.

[OldNick]

No he hasnt. Nothing anyone has posted is critical of anybody who flew those bombing missions. Chapel End Charlie made thoughtful, moving even, posts. He has got posturing in return - claims to speak for others - in the usual TSW manner.

My opinion is that, the criticism of the bombing campaign does disrespect those brave flyers. It is MY opinion not those expressed by others. Those airmen went out and did what they thought was best at that time,and i suggest had they been able to roll the clock forward I doubt they would have bothered. Their sacrifice (Im sure they didnt wish to die) and the aftermath of their efforts by questioning their role in the victory, has been a large part of the reason they have not been honoured before. It is shameful, and whilst i do not condone the deaths of some innocents I find it difficult to comprehend how we could have done it any differently. Civilian causalities are still happening now with our modern weapons, although not targeted of course.

I doubt that CEC intended to show disrespect and those men gave their lives for the freedom of speech and our liberty. Iam perhaps too sensitive to the criticism of Harris and the bombing campaign but the trendy, 'lets be ashamed of our nation actions' does not sit well with me.

[alpine_saint]

My opinion is that, the criticism of the bombing campaign does disrespect those brave flyers. It is MY opinion not those expressed by others. Those airmen went out and did what they thought was best at that time,and i suggest had they been able to roll the clock forward I doubt they would have bothered. Their sacrifice (Im sure they didnt wish to die) and the aftermath of their efforts by questioning their role in the victory, has been a large part of the reason they have not been honoured before. It is shameful, and whilst i do not condone the deaths of some innocents I find it difficult to comprehend how we could have done it any differently. Civilian causalities are still happening now with our modern weapons, although not targeted of course.

I doubt that CEC intended to show disrespect and those men gave their lives for the freedom of speech and our liberty. Iam perhaps too sensitive to the criticism of Harris and the bombing campaign but the trendy, 'lets be ashamed of our nation actions' does not sit well with me.

 

*trying to imagine this discussion going on in the German High Command following London, Coventry and Liverpool...*

[OldNick]

i made a visit to the memorial yesterday, I was in London for a couple of days and felt I would show my respects. What a magnificent tribute it is. I read a few of the messages from relatives and it was very poignant. If in London go and visit it, the bronze is magnificent and the whole feel of the place is very respectful.