Bomber Harris, Criminal or Hero?

World War II British Military
#224

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

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.

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.

#225

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?

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).

#226

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.

#227

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?

#228

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.

#229

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…

#230

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

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.

#231

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.

#232

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.

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.

#233

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. :wink:

#234

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]

#235

Uh, thanks :wink: :oops:

#236

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…

#237

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!

#238

Hello ww2 artist,
Welcome to the forum!

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

#239

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?

#240

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?”

#241

its a little hypocritical to complain if the enemy uses the tactics you first used on them, more effectively

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

The Allies while not fully aware of the scale of the holocaust at the death camps were fully aware of the SS death squads operating in the East.

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

There are a couple of instances where German pilots were attacked by mobs. However this type of behaviour was never encouraged by the British authorities, unlike in Germany.

#242

It beats me why the RAF thought that Germany would cave in after sustained bombing of civilian targets in the first place. It didn’t work when the Luftwaffe tried it on England, why did they think that Germans would fold any quicker? Yet they kept it up for years, with no real apparent slowdown by the German war machine. Arms production of all kinds actually went up IIRC during the peak of British bombing. What exactly did they think they were achieving? Or was it more of a revenge campaign?

#243

There’s some truth to this. But it should be noted that Germany only went over to a full War economy in 1942, and the dispersion of industry from major metropolitan areas to rural areas caused disruption in the German production and made it more difficult to get their equipment to the front and still forced them to consume more resources, increasing the cost of unit production. Not to mention that the Germans also enjoyed over-designing things and producing overly complex machines.

Also, don’t underestimate the resources the Luftwaffe had to pour into defending the Reich against air attacks, and how the diversion of those resources starved them in terms of air power and guns on the Eastern Front…

But I agree, there was a better way to use the Allied strategic air power advantage that would ultimately have been more humane, and effective…