Bomber Harris, Criminal or Hero?

World War II British Military
#64

Agree , mate
But dont’t forget about Hoebbels propoganda. Each allies bombing of german cities were used by Hoebbels in it dirty aims. He tryed to represent the fatal war as the “defence war of Germany”. He all times tryed overstated the victims of bombing ( and honestly speaking, USAF and RAF very helped for him by its unhuman “firestorm”-tactic).
He also very like to picture the violence on the civilians as tupical behavior of Red Army soldiers.( and again :actions of some soviet soldiers helped for the Hoebbels)
It’s amazing but even in most end of war germans continied to believe the Hitler and of couse the Hoebbles propoganda made them more fanatical.
Remember about Breslay - the most sensless and cruel battle after the fall of Berlin.

And now a small off topic:
Couple of days ago I get email from my friend in Poland. he is a professional historian of WWII and his special field is RAF, Luftwaffe and air war.
He was invited to the ceremony of decorating pilots which participated in bombing campaigns.
So far all glory went to fighter pilots and the last surviving pilots of Lancasters and Wellingtons deserved recognition.
The whole event started with speach by Polish Air Force General - active service now - which for 20 minutes was mumbling about pilots which were thinking about Warsaw when bombing Germany and some other patriotic crap.

The next was a real bomber pilot. Elderly’s fellow speach was very short, he said: “I don’t remember thinking about Warsaw or about anything… I’m sure that we all were thinking just about two things - one - how to get over the target, and drop the s…t, and the second - how to get f…k out of there. Thank you very much for attention.”
And walked off the stage.
He used exact words in Polish and the whole assembly was left speechless for about a minute, but after initial consternation everything was as planned:
medal, flowers, salute, medal, flowers salute, medal, flowers, salute…

Cheers,

Lancer44

nice story …
Drop the shit - ang get f…k out of here :slight_smile:

#65

You can make an argument that some Germans fought more fanatically as the result of the bombing. I once saw an interview with an ex-SS soldier that fought in Normandy saying that was one of the reasons the SS fought like devils there. But at the same time, you could argue that there was significant demoralization and loss of faith in the Nazi gov’t to some extent.

And Lancer, I’ve heard those very sentiments echoed by other pilots. The War for most of them was simply a missions to mission struggle of survival, fear, and boredom.

#66

G’day,

It’s all very easy to be critical and revisionist of Harris some sixty plus years later, but was the alternative? How was Britain to carry the war to Nazi Germany, remembering other than the Soviet Union, no one else was in the fight.

I say hats off for Britain standing alone and carrying the fight to the third Reich. It was a battle of survival and Harris knew it. He also knew that if the Germans did finish off the Soviet Union , then the second Battle Of Britain could have been infinately worse.

Every bomb dropped on Germany had an effect of some sort and in a small way helped keep the Soviet Union in the fight.

Regards to all’
Digger.

#67

Hi Digger

Yes it was, indeed. It was the point, during the war Britain could be much more effectively fight with Germans by land ground forces.
As you could be know the RAF absorded at least half of war budget of GB.
If the this enormous means was directed to the creation a great landing troops, Britain woold has a very poverful army already in 1942-43.
Instead of lend-lise to the USSR, together with US they could be landing in France and f…k the Germans already in the end 1942, while the 70% of german war mashine were in Eastern front.
Certainly it could be more bloody for allies , but they really could save the Europe from the Stalin.And finished this war in the 1943.

10 000 aircrafts, 15 000 tanks , 500 000 trucks and millions of ammunition of leand-lise - this enough to create at least 10 air and 5 tanks full complected armis.
This great forces could easy to crush the Germans in France.
But western leaders “prefered to help” the Stalin. And let him to spend the russian lives for his political ambitions. They let him to “liberate” the Eastern Europe , because they were afraided a “big loses” during the landing in France in 1942-43. But they are not disturbed about big material loses of North sea supplies (like PQ-17 ecample)
They prefered to send the lend-lise wearpon and wait while Red Army crashed in bloody 's battles the germans troops in the East till 1944.

How was Britain to carry the war to Nazi Germany, remembering other than the Soviet Union, no one else was in the fight.

no one else was in the fight?? … in 1943-45 when Harris did “its work”

I say hats off for Britain standing alone and carrying the fight to the third Reich. It was a battle of survival and Harris knew it. He also knew that if the Germans did finish off the Soviet Union , then the second Battle Of Britain could have been infinately worse.

Do you hear about Stalingrad battle when each side (german and soviet) lose about 1000-2000 lives in every 24 hours.
So, most of East front battles were the simular - the real battles for survival.
In 1944-45 during the Harris’s bombing of cities, already was absolutly clear thet Germany couldn’t win the war and Second Battle for the Britain will never be.

Every bomb dropped on Germany had an effect of some sort and in a small way helped keep the Soviet Union in the fight.

too small way helped…
Much more effect could be if instead of the expencive strategic flying armadas Britains and US would have the more poverful landing troops and was able to more effective crashed the german forces.

But this , certainly don’t touching the allies pilots, who very bravery and excellent made its work.
I just think that Britain could choose more effective way of fight with germans, not just “decreased the moral of soldiers” by cruel bombing the cities.

Cheers.

#68

G’day,

By defination the bombing campaign of germany by RAF Bomber Command was well underway in 1940 and gradually increased in tempo from 1941. Until Barbarossa Britain was truly alone. Having said that there was not a glimmer of hope on the horizon until the Soviet counterattack at the gates of Moscow.

Officially America entered the war on 7/12/41, but it was to be August the following year the USAAF 8th Air Force began it’s bombing campaign, but it was to be another twelve months before the American bombing reached an appreciable level. And then the Americans were defeated at Schweinfurt and Regansburg.

So by mid 1942 the Soviets were still in the fight but they were being belted back towards Stalingrad. No one is denying the Soviet contribution to victory, but in the dark days of 1942 the possibility of Soviet defeat was still very real. This was why Stalin called on Britain to increase the tempo of bombing against Germany.

Of course the size of British forces were expanding, but by need and attrition they were being drawn to other areas-North Africa, the Mederterranean, the Far East. Britain’s resources were stretched. The raid on Dieppe proved there was much more to be learned and improved upon before a full scale invasion of the continent. An attempt to invade before German industry, transport and infrastructure had been seriously weakened, would have led to a disaster that would have taken years to recover from.

Make no mistake as abhorrent as it may be, the bombing of Germany helped in the defeat of Hitler’s regime. For one it was the single major contributor to the defeat of the Luftwaffe. And with the Luftwaffe beaten, the great victories of 1944 on the eastern front as well as the western front were assured.

Regards to all,
Digger.

#69

The Allied air campaign also tied down enormous German resources involved in air defense, and helped remove the Luftwaffe effectively as an offensive force and engaged it in a battle of attrition that could be won by superior Allied production.

Oh yeah, it also seriously disrupted their supply of fuels and lubricants.

#70

I’ll limit myself to this statement to avoid a threadjack. “Military Necessity” is clearly defined in the 1907 Hague convention. If a town is being used by the enemy for military purposes, is defended (on the ground - i.e. has not been declared an open city) and attempts are made to avoid hitting all clearly marked noncombatant targets, bombardment is specifically legal.

The part you’ve highlighted would rather apply to the destruction of places like Lidice or Oradour-sur-Glaine. These were undefended from the Germans (being in German occupied territory at the time) and contained neither combatants nor Allied war industries.

#71

Hague convention 1907 , dear pdf, never was used in Nurenberg tribunal.
It was a spesial 4-sides agreements of governments of USA-USSR-GB-France
which bacame the basis of creation of International War tribunal(Nurnberg).
It was so called London’s agreement ( 8 august of 1945). This International Tribunal has own its regulations of rules( see above my post )

The part you’ve highlighted would rather apply to the destruction of places like Lidice or Oradour-sur-Glaine. These were undefended from the Germans (being in German occupied territory at the time) and contained neither combatants nor Allied war industries.

I think there are the many peoples , who couldn’t answere were the Lidice or Oradour more undefended then Dresded from the sky or not.
And was the Dresden cultural centre (together with refugees) used for the military purposes?

#72

Then many people don’t understand the laws of war.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm
The murder of the civilians in the occupied villages were clear breaches of the rules of war (Hague 1899), Dresden wasn’t

And was the Dresden cultural centre (together with refugees) used for the military purposes?

Being a European you should know that towns and cities in WW2 didn’t have seperate areas for industry and culture, they were dotted all around the towns and cities. There weren’t industrial estates in the 1940’s ,people lived next to their places of work.

#73

I do have a question though. I think the simplistic casting of Bomber Harris as a complete contrast as either a heroic warrior, or demonic baby-killer, are far too simplistic notions here.

But I do recall hearing that Harris was something of a pariah or outcast in British aristocratic society after WII, largely due to his tactics and planning in the War. Is this incorrect, or is there some truth to this? I’d be interested in the point of view of those in the UK or Commonwealth most of all, who will not politicize this into some “East vs. West” rivalry.

#74

Specialy for you i repeat: Hague convention (1899, 1907 , 1921 and else) wasn’t the basic documents for pirsute of the WW2 war criminals.
It was the spesial Inernational Military Law which was developed in august of 1945(befor the Nurnberg tribunal work).
The states-victors developed the rules for the executing of germans war criminals, but they absolutly forgot that it could be applied for its own war action during WW2.
Absolutly any side had the own war criminals, but in 1945 the main principle was “the victors do not judge”.

Being a European you should know that towns and cities in WW2 didn’t have seperate areas for industry and culture, they were dotted all around the towns and cities. There weren’t industrial estates in the 1940’s ,people lived next to their places of work.

Being a European? Who’s the European , me?:wink:
Yes , certainly i am the european. :slight_smile: Who is offend the my Europe?

Redcoat , if you think that RAF bombed centre of Dresden because it was near the realway station - the single war importaint object in town, you make a big mistake. 13 feb 1945 in Dresden the weather was excellent and bombers could grop the bomb from the low altitude. Besides this there were no the germans fighters in the sky. The RAF could easy destoed the realway station to the crushed stone, but they prefered to burn the centre of city.
Why? may be the british pilots had the problems with the sight - certainly no.
Because the real aim was the centre of city - you could easy be convinced if read the Harris memoirs “Strategic bombings” (London. 1947)

Well i think it bagan to repeat the Dresden thread again, my apologies gentlements.
:slight_smile:

#75

Indeed, i agree with. In any case Harris was salient personality.

#76

[quote=]13 feb 1945 in Dresden the weather was excellent and bombers could grop the bomb from the low altitude. Besides this there were no the germans fighters in the sky.[quote/]

Bugger, did someone forget to invite the Luftwaffe? On enemy! Lets drop to a 1000ft and get every one on target, what ho.

But we are at radio silence, how will they know?

Just have to follow me them.

But we do not fly in formation, we make our own way to the target, bomb at the altitude ordered, and fly home.

Never mind they are bound to see me down here and not drop any bombs on me as I go in and out of the smoke.

As Harris said “those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind”.

#77

Yes i know, the accuracy of carpet bombing were extremaly low. The tactic of application of B-17 or Lancasters was the mass acting by close formation. I read the the story whan after the bombing in Italy allies position was hit the on distance over 12 km from the german “target”. Strategic bombers of WW2 were the very rough weapon.(therefore unhuman in cities)

As Harris said “those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind”.

somthing prompt to me that this famouse statement were invented not by Harris.

#78

Harris actually said something very similar to the statement.

“They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind”

Its well documented.

#79

Hosea 8:7

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind…”

KJV

#80

The tactics used by the 8th AF and BC was different. 6th AF bombed at high altitude in formation and in daylight and BC did it at night and not in formation. Course, TOT and altitude were given at a briefing that afternoon and each aircraft made its own way to the target, not in formation. That is my point and shoots down your comment.

And the whirlwind is about the Germans started bombing civilians first, so people in glasshouses shouldn’t through stones.

#81

You’re not serious, are you?

I voted “A pragmatic wartime leader”. From a sober point-of-view…

#82

Nice Avatar D502 that was my very old one. Anyhow I voted a bastard but our bastard. Im not british but the americans had plenty of basdards like Curtis Lemay…so thats my take on it.

#83

Maybe we should have a “bastard-off” to see which bomber general was the biggest bastard of all? :wink: