The definitive Harris biography is well worth reading -
I have to go with ābastard but OUR bastardā. All the allies were in it together. I love reading about the bombers of WWII more then anything. I have always felt that the daylight strategic bambings of the US and the night raids by our British allies were the perfect one-two combination punch. I have read and heard so many times of one tactic being superior to the other but considering the day and the tech available I say the two working in conjunction were a perfect harmony. As for Harris specifically, I admit to not knowing as much about him as I should but he has always seemed to me to have been the perfect man to do one extremely difficult job. Besides, from what I have read I have never heard of the US giving our allies the Norden bombsite. If they were opposed to area bombing on morale principle wouldnāt thay have assisted our friends in becoming more accurate? If any has head of non-American planes having the Norden I would be very interested in more information.
617 Squadron in their post-dambusters incarnation were equipped with a sight of similar accuracy (may be related, Iām not sure) and were trained up to use it to a very high degree of accuracy (e.g. hitting bridges and tunnels with single bombs from high altitude). RAF bombing policy was such that it would not have been able to make use of such a sight on the rest of their bombers anyway.
It is highly arguable that the Norden bombsight was used to itās full potential anyway, given that for a surprisingly large fraction of the war the average miss distance of the RAF area bombing by night was actually less than the USAF āprecisionā bombing by day.
pdf27,
Thank you for the lead. I hadnāt heard about the accuracy comparisions between the two. It really gives me something to delve into more.
Check out the size of the Grand Slam carried by the Lanc and dropped accurately on targets such as the Bielefield Viaduct:
Thereās rather a good book on the squadron that should give you a good starting point by Paul Brickhill called āThe Dam Bustersā which IIRC covers the entire war for 617 squadron from their formation for the dams raid through the rest of the war as specialised droppers of very large bombs indeed (Tallboy/Grand Slam).
At least, I think thatās the book - been a while since I read it and the copy is at my parentās house so I canāt check it. That should give you enough basic information on sight designations, uses, tactics, etc. to start digging properly.
Gāday,
Okay Iām late on this debate too. You must excuse me. You guys have pretty well covered the debate and the only thing I will add is that like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden stirs emotions in people who for the most part, did not live under the threat of war. The people of today have little understanding of total war and perhaps the most vicious totalarian regimes ever.
One small point. pdf27 raised the subject of the RN protecting the dominions. The RN was seen very little in Australian and New Zealand waters, especially after Singapore.
Regards to all,
Digger.
IIRC most of them were hiding at Trincomalee, using the threat of a āfleet in beingā to tie down the Japanese to an extent. They were probably too weak to do much else at the time.
In any case, the prewar plan was for the RN to protect the Dominions (they after all didnāt have their own navies capable of doing so). However as they say no plan survives contact with the enemy, and this one certainly didnāt.
Gāday,
All RAN units were eventually withdrawn to Australia and suffered heavily against the Japanese Imperial Navy. Likewise the Royal Navy copped a battering and there wasnāt much of a naval presence left to cover the dominions.
Back to Bomber Harris, during the war he was much admired and of course received a knighthood. Personally he was greatly affected by the Coventry bombing and one can only guess the emotions stirred in him. In reality he wanted to get the job done and if that meant blasting every German city to rubble, so be it. Britain did not ask for war, and I can understand his reasoning.
I think a lot of the bad press began when Churchill, ever the politician abandoned him after negative news reports about the raid. Churchill could see his political future slipping away if he remained too close. As it was he was dumped at the first elections after the war.
Regards to all,
Digger.
According with the standards of Nuremberg tribunal Bomber Harris had to be hung as the war criminal.
With the burning by napalm and by the phosphoric bombs of Germanās cities it were always aimed into the center section. He didnāt interested military objects or plants. Terror and genocide of German population was its central objective. The bombing of Dresden of 13-14 February 1945 was the worst criminal.
The simple fact that he did its job not could be considering as justification.
Nazi criminals, also simply did its work.
I do believe I heard that Harris was some what shunned in post-War British society, and that he was truly thought of as āour bastard,ā which he indeed was. Along with Gen. Curtis LeMay, was our American bastard.
Sure, right after Stalin and most of the Soviet High Command.
Agree .
Together with Trumen, Cherchill and all of allied Airforce Hight Command for genocide of Japanese cities.
Weāll need more judges and lawyers.
Who said this?:
āKilling ______ didnāt bother me very much at that timeā¦ I suppose if I _____ the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.ā
"Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, youāre not a good soldier. "
I donāt know
Really who said this?
Gen. Curtis LeMay USAF -A certifiable nutcase by the Kennedy Administrationā¦
Normally I just let your insinuations pass by, but I canāt just let this one slide as itās too blatant.
The counts at Nuremberg were:
- Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
- War crimes
- Crimes against humanity
They all have clear (ish) legal definitions. Counts 1 and 2 do not apply to Harris. Count 3 he is innocent of, as the international law of the time governing war crimes was the Hague convention of 1907. This explicitly permits the bombardment of cities, provided they are defended (on the ground) and the attackers make an attempt to avoid those protected places that the defenders have clearly marked. Count 4 deals with genocide, etc. which again he was not involved in.
Nope, but the fact that such attacks were explicitly permitted by the Hague convention could indeed be considered justification. Incidentally, learn a bit about the effects of weapons before going off on a rant - the British leaned at Coventry, London and a few other places that the most effective way to take out the industry in a town is to burn the centre down (as happened at Coventry). Machine tools are fiendishly hard to destroy with explosives (needing practically a direct hit - during the battle of Britain they would literally sweep them off, hang a tarpaulin overhead and get back to work). However, all of the services they need (water, electricity, transport, etc.) would at the time go through the town centres. Destroy them and the industry is paralysed - hence the policy of attacking town centres.
Hi pdf.
You are the ādangerā opponent , my respect 
Is your life principle:" brevity - sister of the talent"
According to st. 6 regulations of International Military Tribunal war criminals were those, who completed any of the enumerated crimes. All military crimes were divided into three groups:
crime against the peace, namely: planning, preparation, unbinding or conducting aggressive war in the disturbance of international contracts, agreements or assertions or the participation in the general plan or the plot, directed toward the realization of any of the actions outlined above.
military crimes, namely: the disturbance of laws or customs of war. They include the murders, tortures or withdrawal into the servitude or for other purposes of the citizen of the territory occupied; murder or the torture of prisoners of war or those, who are located in the sea; the murder of hostages; the robbery of public or private property; senseless destruction cities or villages; the destruction, not justified by military necessity, and other crimes.
crime against humanity, namely: murder, destruction, enslavement, reference and other cruelties, perfected in the attitude of citizen to either during the war or the pursuit on the political, racial or religious motives for the purpose of realization either in connection with any crime, which is subject to the jurisdiction of tribunal, regardless of the fact, were these actions the disturbance of the internal right of the country, where they were perfected, or not.
ā¦ Counts 1 and 2 do not apply to Harris.
Oops, are you sure ?,ā¦
So tell me plaese what was the military necessity of burning Dresden? And killing at least 25 000 civils (according reducing British data)
As you know official target was the railway station ( which began to work in whole power already next day).
P.S.
I think if Nuremberg tribunal was the law court above the war criminals and not pitiful public by violence above germans, then all chief war criminals would not be placed in the building of the law court
Guys, we already had the Dresden thread and this is definately not going to be taken over discussing Dresden. Chevan, if you want to discuss Harris this is fine, if you want to make it a Dresden discussion, it is not fine.
If you continue with this line I will have to think seriously about removing any posts.
I wont have this thread hijacked for your War Crininal agenda!
If you wish to discuss War Criminals, open a new thread.
Yeah, and hold all generals accountable to the same standards you hold British Air Marshals too.
You could on and on expanding the list by accusing ground war generals of targeting civilian areas with artillery. Or not maintaining the āgood-order and conduct,ā the discipline, of their troops.
And I am no fan of Bomber Harris or Crazy LeMayā¦