Bomber Harris, Criminal or Hero?

[pdf27]

@Drake

But I agree he was pretty well liked in the first part of his reign. He hadn’t done much damage to the majority of the population up until then. Just to some minorities and people have a tendency to look the other way.

I was more referring to the end of the war. Even in 1945 when Germany had clearly lost, very large numbers of Germans were prepared to fight to the death to extend Nazi rule by a few days. This included almost the entire civilian population.

@Drake

Civil courage is unfortunately a pretty rare commodity in a dictatorship. Most people just want to live their lives and I personally don’t put blame on them, cause I am not entirely sure if I would’ve found the courage to stand up against the nazis, because it was well known what happened to those who did.

So what? In failing to oppose them you - IMHO of course - become guilty of their crimes to almost the same extent as the perpetrators. That is something I wouldn’t be willing to have on my conscience.

@Drake

This is one of the articles that could apply, yes. But that’s why I said it would be very tricky lawyerbabble. It also states in article 23:
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; (I would count inceniaries such as napalm under this rule)

That’s the St Petersburg Declaration, which is generally taken to outlaw expanding or explosive bullets fired by a manportable shoulder-fired firearm (that’s what was agreed at the time).
Personally, I think “superfluous injury” is a nonsensical concept in a military weapon - they are specifically designed to kill people, and the way you do that is by causing the maximum possible amount of injury to your target.

@Drake

When it comes to this “defended part” it becomes again very tricky. The airspace over germany was defended, so basically not even the smallest village was undefended. But you could also count a peasant with a fork as defender under the rules of this convention, yet I would find it highly inappropriate to blast him out of his pants with an mp;). It becomes obvious the bombardment part was intended to be used in case of an actually besieged city, it was simply unsuitable and outdated for the kind of conflict at hand.

Arguably so, but there seems to be nothing in the text to prevent you extending it to a whole besieged country. If you do, then ground defences become relevant - even if they are a hell of a long way away from the target. Aircraft in this case are treated as simply very long range artillery, which to my mind seems appropriate.

@Drake

One point I would want to add to the “It was illegal only later, so don’t blame him” part of the conversation:
The laws under which several of the crimes the nazi leaders were prosecuted for in the nuremberg trials (very rightfully i might add) such as preparations for waging an aggressive war and crimes against humanity were invented only after the war. So technically speaking they wouldn’t have applied as by the time they commited the crime, it wasn’t one.

Waging agressive war seems to me to be somewhat of an ex post facto crime - ever since the Treaty of Westphalia it had been assumed that a head of state had the right to wage war and that this was somewhere close to an unlimited right (compared to previous moral views). Crimes against humanity are not a postwar invention however - they merely encompass a very large number of individual crimes of murder, which was a crime under the German criminal law prior to the war.

[pdf27]

@Tham

The “versus” comparator is quite superficial and arbitrary, and is a common misconception amongst many people.

Hardly - see the rest of it for the analysis.

@Tham

If the .50 caliber rounds hit the German night fighter, they are going to do their same damage regardless of how many 20 or 30 mm guns the enemy aircraft has. If they hit, they hit. Or at least throw the German off-aim. The heavy cannons don’t do anything to “protect” or save the night fighter.

Umm… given the relative positions and the chance of the bomber spotting the nightfighter in time, the cannon will probably work by killing the gunner before he gets a shot off.

@Tham

This is similar to the common misconception that the Bf109F, with a single 20 mm in the centerline, is “less heavily armed” than the Spitfire’s two 20 mms. Most times, I believe only one of the Spitfire’s cannon will hit the target, due to the spaced-out wing mounting, regardless of convergence corrections.

Depends on harmonisation and range. Chances are, all the Spitfire guns will hit as many times as the Bf109 gun hits - deflection shooting errors are rather bigger than convergance errors.

@Tham

And if your reasoning is logical, then one might as well not do anything and sit down, shaking legs in their bombers, as cannon fodder to be shot down like flies.

Pretty much British postwar rationale. Note that NO British bomber since the Lancaster has had any form of defensive armament.

@Tham

The radio operator or navigator could perhaps man that gun when approaching the target, negating the need for an extra man.

IIRC they were the front gunner at the time. Approaching the target the main danger was the Wilde Sau fighters anyway. Schrage Musik was more a danger on the in/out routes.

[redcoat]

@Tham

The British didn’t even have any ventral remote-
controlled .50 caliber turrets anyway, let alone 20 mm ones, and night vision devices were only a dream at that time. The suggested ventral window and hand-aimed .50 Browning was a fast, stop-gap measure in the face of countless Schrage Muzik losses. It was also suggested
by the British author of that book I mentioned earlier. The radio operator or navigator could perhaps man that gun when approaching the target, negating the need for an extra man.

Unless you have better ideas.

Bomber Command had mainly solved the Schrage Muzik problem by the spring of 1944, when most of the bombers were fitted with ‘Fishpond’, a warning radar which showed them when an aircraft was below and behind them, and losses dropped sharply.

[Drake]

@pdf27

I was more referring to the end of the war. Even in 1945 when Germany had clearly lost, very large numbers of Germans were prepared to fight to the death to extend Nazi rule by a few days. This included almost the entire civilian population.

There were many reasons why germans kept fighting, but I doubt the reason for the majority was to keep hitler in power.

@pdf27

So what? In failing to oppose them you - IMHO of course - become guilty of their crimes to almost the same extent as the perpetrators. That is something I wouldn’t be willing to have on my conscience.

I wouldn’t want it on me either, but sometimes your choices are very limited.
I think it’s pretty easy and pretentious in the comfort and safety we live in today to say : “I would have, could have”. And I’m sure a lot of people felt guilty after the war for looking the other way, doing nothing.
But I have a little thought experiment for you. Let’s assume you’re in a bank and suddenly a bank robber comes in, heavily armed, and takes all the money.
I assume you are obviously and clearly guilty of armed robbery and taking of hostages, as are all the other customers.

@pdf27

Personally, I think “superfluous injury” is a nonsensical concept in a military weapon - they are specifically designed to kill people, and the way you do that is by causing the maximum possible amount of injury to your target.

I guess the point should limit the suffering of the poor souls that survive. Burning alive is possibly the most horrible thing I can imagine, surviving it might be just as horrible for the rest of your life. But I agree that its a very odd concept considering the purpose of weapons.

[pdf27]

@Drake

But I have a little thought experiment for you. Let’s assume you’re in a bank and suddenly a bank robber comes in, heavily armed, and takes all the money.
I assume you are obviously and clearly guilty of armed robbery and taking of hostages, as are all the other customers.

Non-sequitor - you’re suggesting that you should risk your own life and that of others around you to save money for a third party. A better simile would be a situation where the bank robbery has gone wrong, the robbers have taken everyone in the bank hostage and are starting to murder them to force the police to give in. What kind of person are you if you just ignore them doing that?

@Drake

I guess the point should limit the suffering of the poor souls that survive. Burning alive is possibly the most horrible thing I can imagine, surviving it might be just as horrible for the rest of your life. But I agree that its a very odd concept considering the purpose of weapons.

Napalm is hardly the only weapon to cause terrible burns. Just about any high explosive will do that, as will smoke rounds (which contain white phosphorous).

[Drake]

@pdf27

Non-sequitor - you’re suggesting that you should risk your own life and that of others around you to save money for a third party. A better simile would be a situation where the bank robbery has gone wrong, the robbers have taken everyone in the bank hostage and are starting to murder them to force the police to give in. What kind of person are you if you just ignore them doing that?

Possibly a hostage as all the others. There is nothing you can do about it, except dying first if you don’t happen to call yourself John Mclane.
If I was the police chief with a capable specialized counter terrorist force such as the gsg9 here in germany I would order an immediate rescue attempt. But that is precisely the situation the population found itself in. They were many, as usual in a hostage situation, but a small (in relative numbers, absolute there were possibly several 100000 of hardcore nazi, SA had over 500000 members in 1933) group was in absolute control over life and death. There were only very few persons who would’ve had a chance to do anything about it, cause they had an organisation to rely on, namely the generals of the army, but even for them it was very difficult and they risked not only their lives but also those of their beloved. It has been proven time and again in world history, that the population in a dictatorship can hardly hope to do anything without major help from the outside if the dictators are willing to use force to remain in power. (June 17th 1953 in east germany, Prague in the sixties, tien an men etc.) There were those in germany who stood up publicly to serve as a beacon of morale and justice, such as the white rose and several catholic and protestant priests, but they simply vanished in the cellars of the gestapo.
The only persons who should have been really ashamed and punished afterwards were imho those who used the situation for personal gain. But when it comes to the average joe I don’t think that we have the moral high ground to judge him for his actions or better inactions.

[pdf27]

@Drake

They were many, as usual in a hostage situation, but a small (in relative numbers, absolute there were possibly several 100000 of hardcore nazi, SA had over 500000 members in 1933) group was in absolute control over life and death. There were only very few persons who would’ve had a chance to do anything about it, cause they had an organisation to rely on, namely the generals of the army, but even for them it was very difficult and they risked not only their lives but also those of their beloved.

Every occupied nation in Europe had some sort of effective resistance organisation except Germany. Are you trying to persuade me that having the entire Wehrmacht breathing down your neck is somehow less scary and dangerous than the NSDAP members in Germany?

[Drake]

@pdf27

Every occupied nation in Europe had some sort of effective resistance organisation except Germany. Are you trying to persuade me that having the entire Wehrmacht breathing down your neck is somehow less scary and dangerous than the NSDAP members in Germany?

I guess the fear of reprisal didn’t differ here or there.
You are right, there were people who did the things they could all over europe. There were also just as many collaborateurs, probably much more.
But the overwhelming part of the occupied population just wanted to live on and so they found themselves in the same situation as most of the german civilians.
But I think we have an entirely different opinion when it comes to the “effective” part. The resistance in europe was never anything but a little harassment in the grand scheme of things.
And it is simply not true, that the germans did nothing. There were people in germany helping jews and doing whatever all those others did (in secrecy), just as anywhere else. And I indeed believe, that it was much more difficult to actually organize something in germany than anywhere else, because the grip the nazi had on germany was much more firm (intelligence wise) than in occupied territory. An organization requires a tremendous amount of secrecy and the capability of the nazi to uncover such “plots” was much bigger in germany than anywhere else, simply due to the fact, that this has long been their base of operation and they had years prior to the war to establish the necessary means to counter such action.
The interesting question here seems to be, what precisely you would have expected from the german population? Overthrowing the government? You still seem unable to grasp the concept of a dictatorship. And I have to point out again, that we are talking about average joe here, not the adolf followers, who I have no intention to defend in any way.

[Nickdfresh]

@pdf27

Every occupied nation in Europe had some sort of effective resistance organisation except Germany…

Most resistance organizations were minimally effective and really had a very small overall impact on the War. With the possible exception of the Balkans, they tied down few German troops, and were kept in check by security forces that were often partially comprised of their own traitor countrymen…

There was a core of anti-Nazi officers that were centered within the Wehrmacht, most notably at the HQ of ‘Army Group Centre’ on the Eastern Front (where Von Stauffenberg began his agitations as he witnessed what was often open contempt for Hitler and the brutal methods only alienating the Soviet populations). I read speculations by John Keegan that Hitler was actually in some danger when he visited the command in 1942 (I think), when things were beginning to go badly…

And I think the point must be made that the Nazis controlled Germany and Austria before they controlled any other nation, and had stifled any dissent by the late thirties. (by WWII, it was an offense punishable by death to listen to the BBC!) But there were numerous plots to kill Hitler, but the Wehrmacht officers that hated him were victims of their own initial successes…

[pdf27]

@Nickdfresh

Most resistance organizations were minimally effective and really had a very small overall impact on the War. With the possible exception of the Balkans, they tied down few German troops, and were kept in check by security forces that were often partially comprised of their own traitor countrymen…

The Danes and Norwegians achieved a fair bit. In any case, the point is that they tried and the Germans didn’t

@Nickdfresh

There was a core of anti-Nazi officers that were centered within the Wehrmacht, most notably at the HQ of ‘Army Group Centre’ on the Eastern Front (where Von Stauffenberg began his agitations as he witnessed what was often open contempt for Hitler and the brutal methods only alienating the Soviet populations). I read speculations by John Keegan that Hitler was actually in some danger when he visited the command in 1942 (I think), when things were beginning to go badly…

Anti-Nazi is a rather misleading tag for them, although “when things were beginning to go badly” hits the nail squarely on the head. All of the plots within the Wehrmacht aimed at removing Hitler were based on the premise that if he was removed Germany would either do better or be able to negotiate a favourable peace treaty that would enable it to maintain it’s gains. There was never any sense that what they had done was morally wrong, merely hard-headed practicality seeking to maximise what they could get out of it for Germany. That, IMHO, makes them virtually as bad as the Nazis.

[Rising_Sun]

It’s not comparing apples with apples to compare resistance movements in occupied Europe with what happened, or didn’t happen, in Germany.

Resistance movements in occupied countries were opposing an external enemy.

Germans would be opposing and taking up arms against their own people and nation. It’s a lot harder to do that than to oppose another nation.

Another problem is that the aim and result for occupied countries was simple: eject the invader and regain our independence, not that it turned out that way for a lot of countries.

What would have happened in Germany if the Nazis had been toppled? Whatever evils might have underpinned and been committed by the Nazis, they at least brought a far greater stability to the vast bulk of the German people than they had known in recent memory. It would have been difficult for many Germans to work to destroy that and risk creating even more turbulent times than they experienced 1918-33.

[Drake]

@pdf27

The Danes and Norwegians achieved a fair bit. In any case, the point is that they tried and the Germans didn’t.

You should seriously consider polishing your knowledge of german history during that period. Your statements that they did nothing are plain and simply wrong. And while I have no intention to hide the lights of those in the resistence movements under a bushel, as I consider that highly disrespectful given the personal risks they have taken, their achievements were minimal. Usually the best they could do is provide some intelligence to the allies, which those had to verify anyway. I don’t doubt their commitment, but there simply was no way in hell, they could’ve helped themselves in any way to get rid of the german occupation without the allies actually defeating nazi germany.
So coincidentally the only hope they had, besides nazi defeat, was, that those germans who did nothing, achieve a change of government.

@pdf27

Anti-Nazi is a rather misleading tag for them, although “when things were beginning to go badly” hits the nail squarely on the head. All of the plots within the Wehrmacht aimed at removing Hitler were based on the premise that if he was removed Germany would either do better or be able to negotiate a favourable peace treaty that would enable it to maintain it’s gains. There was never any sense that what they had done was morally wrong, merely hard-headed practicality seeking to maximise what they could get out of it for Germany. That, IMHO, makes them virtually as bad as the Nazis.

There were plots even before the war, for example during the Czech crisis. The military elite wanted to remove him there, despite all of hitlers “achievements” and despite the fact, that they had sworn an oath to him personally, which by that time really meant a LOT to a prussian officer.
If the French and British hadn’t sold out Czechoslovakia there and Hitler would’ve declared war, his reign would’ve been over with a pretty high probability. But you have of course to wait for an opportunity to remove an existing government, you are not working in a void. After the fall of france there was a period of time, where hitler was practically untouchable. The common general in germany had always mostly been a prussian catholic noble, they were not exactly friends of hitler or his policies to start with, although happy that “their” military was again getting stronger as it should be in their eyes. And of course they would’ve tried to negotiate a favorable peace, after all it was the not so favorable peace of WW1, that gave Hitler the ammunition to bombard the Weimar Republic from the very beginning.
I doubt however, that they would’ve insisted on anything but west prussia and the other areas with a majority german population which was german anyway prior to ww1. They didn’t share Hitlers dream of Lebensraum.

[Egorka]

Off topic:

Drake, I am actually rahter happy we have such an active German forum member who pedals the German point of view.
It is very good for the discussion!

P.S: It does not mean I agree with everything you say.

[Rising_Sun]

@Egorka

Off topic:

Drake, I am actually rahter happy we have such an active German forum member who pedals the German point of view.
It is very good for the discussion!

P.S: It does not mean I agree with everything you say.

Drake

I’m glad to see you, and your well argued views, too.

[Just quietly, between you and me, Egorka is fine as long as you present your arguments in figures. Make sure they’re big figures because he’s Russian and he’s not used to anything under millions :D]

[Drake]

Uh, thanks :oops:

[Nickdfresh]

@pdf27

The Danes and Norwegians achieved a fair bit. In any case, the point is that they tried and the Germans didn’t

The Danes presented essentially no military resistance to the Germans. They also surrendered with firing nary a shot.

And the Norwegians had benefit of close ties to, and significant training by, the SOE, OSS, and SAS. In fact, they were essentially very well trained and equipped SAS members that happened to be Norwegian. They were also operating in a sparsely populated frozen tundra which made direct reprisals against Norwegian civilians, by the Nazis, less practical as a deterrent…

History has shown that the best “resistance organizations” against the Nazi Germans were essentially intelligence gatherers in nature. Proactive military resistance was retributive harshly, and resistance organizations themselves were relatively easy to penetrate by the Gestapo, indigenous fifth columnists, or Abwehr, since they were predominately based on a conventional military organization, and not cellular structures generally speaking…

And of course, there were a number of German agents, communist and otherwise, that served the Allied cause. Including an unnamed, and to this day unknown, German spy that delivered the secrets of the Nazi bomb program; this allowed the Norwegian commandos to be as “effective” as they were in stopping it…

And we’ll have to agree to disagree that there was no resistance to Hitler in the Third Reich. For there in fact was…

Anti-Nazi is a rather misleading tag for them, although “when things were beginning to go badly” hits the nail squarely on the head. All of the plots within the Wehrmacht aimed at removing Hitler were based on the premise that if he was removed Germany would either do better or be able to negotiate a favourable peace treaty that would enable it to maintain it’s gains. There was never any sense that what they had done was morally wrong, merely hard-headed practicality seeking to maximise what they could get out of it for Germany. That, IMHO, makes them virtually as bad as the Nazis.

It is true that the motives of the coup plotters was largely nationalistic. They were patriots, as any German that fought Hitler, but many were also pious Christians genuinely disgusted with the treatment of the Jews and of the peoples living under Nazi occupation. They also rightly saw these policies as not only evil incarnate, but as even counterproductive to their mission of conquest, or later, defense as resources were spent and otherwise potentially sympathetic indigenous populations alienated…

And as pointed out by Drake, to judge those Germans that took a stand against Hitler as “virtually as bad as the Nazis” is a profoundly unfair, even unconscionable, statement to make, since they risked the loss of everything, including (their perception, reinforced by propaganda and threats even if it wasn’t necessarily true in many cases) their wives and children…

[ww2artist]

Thinking of how the Luftwaffe hit London during the Blitz, how they later launched V1s and V2s that indiscriminately fell on any target, how they murdered the Jews, and also the way in which allied airman were beaten to death by civilians, I think Bomber Harris did what he had to do. Those are just a few incidents that were carried out by Germany, and I’m sure it wasn’t just the SS that carried out these atrocities.
Daylight raids were far too costly for the RAF, and anyway, the USAAF with their Norden bomb sights took that one, so night-time was the only suitable time for RAF large scale raids and even these produced heavy losses.
No, not a hero, or a bastard, but someone who got the job done. We were in all out war! Germany wasn’t going to surrender anytime soon, they were still gassing Jews right up to the moment the Allies arrived at the camps. They still fought on even with the Russians within the suburbs of Berlin. That type of fanaticism had to be defeated by any means necessary. Those old men and young boys defending their home city could have thrown down their weapons and surrendered at any time. And before anyone says that the Russians acted like savages to the people of Berlin, think of the atrocities in any villages or towns committed by Germans as they advanced through Russia!

[Egorka]

Hello ww2 artist,
Welcome to the forum!

@ww2artist

Thinking of how the Luftwaffe hit London during the Blitz, how they later launched V1s and V2s that indiscriminately fell on any target,

That is right. But fact still remains that there were killed more than 10 times the number of german civilians than British in the same kind of actions.

how they murdered the Jews,

Presumeably the Allied command knew NOTHING about the extermination in the concentration camps. So this argument is not correct.

and also the way in which allied airman were beaten to death by civilians,

Yes, it is ugly. But I do nto know what whould happened to the German pilots if half a million Brits were killed in bombing. What do you think?

Regards
Igor

[Firefly]

That is right. But fact still remains that there were killed more than 10 times the number of german civilians than British in the same kind of actions.

Hmm, I wonder how many Jews were gassed by the UK compared to how many that Germany did.

Your argument isnt exactly valid is it?

How many foreign labourers were killed by the bombings that could have been saved if only the Germans allowed them into air raid shelters?

[Nickdfresh]

Or the 250,000 Germans that were killed in The Battle of Berlin? Did it matter if they were killed via bombing, starvation, or Soviet artillery “firesacks?”