Bomber Harris, Criminal or Hero?

[Bluffcove]

What are peoples views of Bomber Harris?

[Man of Stoat]

He did go a bit OTT on a few occasions where it wasn't strictly necessary...

[BDL]

Did what he had to do. There was no other way to attack Germany in those days, he had to use area bombing because that's all we could use.

[Bluffcove]

BDL, Dresden? and Firestorm tactics?

Mosquito raid on the prison shows we were capable of accuracy,

Im only playing devils advocate, and trying to start a thread that is reliant on opinion rather than fact.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Not sure what Bomber Harris did? Could you explain.........more? I get the general sense but not the specifics.

[Man of Stoat]

He was the chief of Bomber Command in WW2, and ordered a lot of the big night-time raids against cities - google or wikipedia to find out more.

[BDL]

BDL, Dresden? and Firestorm tactics?

Mosquito raid on the prison shows we were capable of accuracy,

Im only playing devils advocate, and trying to start a thread that is reliant on opinion rather than fact.

The small raids by the Mosquito squadrons were very accurate, but were only made on very small targets and (if I recall correctly) a lot of training before the big day. I also believe they were made in the day?

If the Mossies had attacked Germany during the day in anything other than tiny raids (which would not have been big enough to hurt German industry all that much), they would have been slaughtered in the way that the USAAF was. They had to use large formations of very heavy bombers to move enough bombs to attack the large industrial areas, those heavy bombers were not accurate enough to hit the factories in any kind of precise way. It's unfortunate that so many civillians had to die, but it was war and it had to be done (and it was against the country that had invented bombing civillians on a large scale).

IMO Dresden was a legitimate target - one of the main transport hubs for moving supplies to the Eastern Front. Again, what happened is a pity, but these things happen during total war.

[Voluntary Escaper]

He should have been sacked. He was insubordinate in pursuing the massive urban bombing campaign, when he had been directed to focus on key military and economic targets.

I doubt he ordered any act that was egregious enough by the standards of the time to constitute a "war crime". Area bombing had been advocated by all major military nations as a legitimate instrument of war. However, the bombing of cities (particularly the fire raid on Dresden) caused massively disproportionate casualties for any military advantage gained.

Bomber Command should have focused its efforts on strategic economic targets - particularly fuel production - and on flattening the Wehrmacht to assist the ground offensive.

[2nd of foot]

I think he had too much power and was a law onto himself. Bomber command (BC) got the cream of the crop as far as recruits. Ministry of supply gave priority to BC for equipment and slowed down the introduction of a decent engine for tanks, the meteor based on the merlin.

His refusal to allocate recourses to support ground forces should have got him sacked. He had lost sight of the big picture and could only see his little world. His continuing belief that bombing would win the war showed his inability to see the big picture.

His early work was good and at a time when it was the only method we had of fighting back should not be forgotten. But he lost his way and his commanders lost control over him. If you think of the way that army commanders were treated it is surprising he got away with it.

Having said all this the way he and BC was treated after the war was disgraceful

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well from what I read ill have to go with 'A Bastard but "YOUR" Bastard' :D

[Walther]

I understand that Dresden was bombed on request of the Russians, because they assumed that Dresden was a centre for supplies and reinforcements sent to the eastern front.

Jan

[student-scaley]

Although what he did could be considered a little bit OTT, it was a TOTAL war. Nasty things have to be done to get results, even if that result was the worsening of German morale, lets not forget the Germans bombed British cities as well, in short they're all as bad as each other. I have no doubt that had the Axis won then Harris would have been had up for war crimes the same way Goering was, but he was 'our' bastard after all.

[LargeBrew]

It's easy with the benifit of hindsight to look back and critisize the tactics used in the air war. I'm sure that at the time you would be hard pressed to find critics amongst the citizens of London, Liverpool, Birmingham,Glasgow and particularly Coventry. Even with a contolled media you can't hide home losses and this has to have effected the moral of frontline forces.
Area bombing wasn't about hitting strategic targets it was about bringing the war to the front door of the people who put Hitler in power.
Harris may have been a bastard but he was the right bastard at the right time.

[pdf27]

Plus, the entire tactic of night area bombing was forced on the RAF by the aircraft technology available to them and with the approval of their political leadership. Harris was merely the executor of civilan policy, and nothing he did violated the accepted laws of war at the time (the Hague convention for example explicitly bans only the bombardment of totally undefended cities and the deliberate destruction of certain types of building). If you want to blame someone for the bombing tactics of WW2, try Douhet.

[Sturmtruppen]

your bastard.

[Bladensburg]

Hmm, well I suppose Argentina was quite friendly to fleeing Nazis so that's a fair point. :wink:

[Sturmtruppen]

Hmm, well I suppose Argentina was quite friendly to fleeing Nazis

and???

[Sturmtruppen]

Well from what I read ill have to go with 'A Bastard but "YOUR" Bastard' :D

the same.

[pdf27]

Well from what I read ill have to go with 'A Bastard but "YOUR" Bastard' :D
I suppose I probably ought to point out here that for much of the war the RAF (bombing at night) had an average miss distance from the target smaller than the USAAF (bombing by day). Sounds strange but it's actually true - by the time the USAAF was actually launching sizeable raids the RAF had largely solved their navigational difficulties and were bombing reasonably accurately.
Oh, and trying to seperate out the actions of the western allies during WW2 is pointless at this level - the US, British and Commonwealth/Imperial forces were integrated to a very deep level and their policies were virtually indistinguishable towards the enemy. The choices made on night/day bombing were actually enforced by aircraft type available rather than doctrine - it's worth noting here that Curtis E. Lemay was quite happy to have his bombers run night area raids of Japan (including the most lethal raid in history, more so than the A-bomb raids) once he had the B-29s available.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well from what I read ill have to go with 'A Bastard but "YOUR" Bastard' :D
I suppose I probably ought to point out here that for much of the war the RAF (bombing at night) had an average miss distance from the target smaller than the USAAF (bombing by day). Sounds strange but it's actually true - by the time the USAAF was actually launching sizeable raids the RAF had largely solved their navigational difficulties and were bombing reasonably accurately.
Oh, and trying to seperate out the actions of the western allies during WW2 is pointless at this level - the US, British and Commonwealth/Imperial forces were integrated to a very deep level and their policies were virtually indistinguishable towards the enemy. The choices made on night/day bombing were actually enforced by aircraft type available rather than doctrine - it's worth noting here that Curtis E. Lemay was quite happy to have his bombers run night area raids of Japan (including the most lethal raid in history, more so than the A-bomb raids) once he had the B-29s available.

Agreed. Didnt say we didnt have our own bastards. Just said that this one was your bastard. :D Yet you cant really make a huge distinction between the US and UK. Never before in History have 2 countries worked together so closely in a war.

[pdf27]

Never before in History have 2 countries worked together so closely in a war.
British and Dominion forces in both world wars? British and Hannoverian forces in the late 1600s? British and Portugese forces during the Peninsular war? Not convinced by that statement...

[Gen. Sandworm]

Never before in History have 2 countries worked together so closely in a war.
British and Dominion forces in both world wars? British and Hannoverian forces in the late 1600s? British and Portugese forces during the Peninsular war? Not convinced by that statement...

WTFOFMGBBQ :?: :?: :?: I think you would have just been better off saying that the only fighting done in all of WW2 was in North Africa. To belittle my statement is almost belittling utter vastness of that war.

Firstly, I group Dominion forces into the British catagory and here is why:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Dominion

The US gave you so much stuff under the land lease act its not funny. And thats before we were declared Allies. Naturally you repaid the favor thru other means (equally as much IMO) when we did join the alliance. But what assitance did you send your Dominion forces??? IMO your "former" colonies came more to your aid than vice versa.

The US and UK traded just about everything possilbe to help further the war effort and the eventual defeat of the Axis powers. You said that yourself. ...trying to seperate out the actions of the western allies during WW2 is pointless at this level - the US, British and Commonwealth/Imperial forces were integrated to a very deep level and their policies were virtually indistinguishable towards the enemy. About the only things we didnt give each other were things of the highest national security. And there wasnt alot. Before D-day 1 in every 15 men in England were US soliders. And where were these US soliders staying? Mostly in the homes of your countrymen and women. If you go to Malta and see the headquarters there. You will see Eisenhowers desk right down the hall from Alexanders.

Lets say that the Nazi's had got somekind of alien help. :D Getting serious now. LOL. And that the Axis powers had conquered the world. Who do you think most of the poor bastards at their f*cked up war crimes trial would have been??? Minus the Russians. Leaders of the the UK and the US. They aint going to be messin with some captain of a New Zealand regiment, who was ultimately under UK command anyhow.

And your other forces you talk about. Portugese and Hannoverian. Those wars dont compare. And i seriously doubt that they could compare to the integration of the US and UK forces of WW2. WW2 was the largest conflict ever known and hopefully it will end that way.

I know this probably sound as thou im trying to knock you and that is not my intention. But sorry I am not "convinced" You might argue my outlook of Dominion (interesting term BTW) forces. So change my statement number to 3 then. US-UK-Former parts of the UK. So i stand by my statement. Although applied to another conflict "We must all hang together or else we will surely all hang separately" would be very befitting quote in regards to our WW2 alliance.

So bomber Harris may have been "your" bastard but we take as much responsibility for him as you do. :D :lol:

[pdf27]

Never before in History have 2 countries worked together so closely in a war.
British and Dominion forces in both world wars? British and Hannoverian forces in the late 1600s? British and Portugese forces during the Peninsular war? Not convinced by that statement...

WTFOFMGBBQ :?: :?: :?: I think you would have just been better off saying that the only fighting done in all of WW2 was in North Africa. To belittle my statement is almost belittling utter vastness of that war.
I'm not having a go at the scale of US co-operation/aid, rather at the suggestion that it was completely unprecedented for two countries to co-operate that closely. In the case of the Dominion and Hannoverian forces, they both had the same king as the UK at the time but were still independent countries. This would force military co-operation to be very close indeed. In the case of the British and Portugese forces during the Peninsular war, the Portugese put Wellington in charge of all their forces - giving a unified command structure nearly 150 years before the US/UK did so.

But what assitance did you send your Dominion forces??? IMO your "former" colonies came more to your aid than vice versa.
Equipment and training. They were all equipped almost exclusively with British pattern equipment (despite occasional other designs like the Ross rifle, which were usually unsuccessful - the Dominions simply didn't have the industrial capacity to arm themselves), and were protected by the RN. The Dominions contributed more to the British Empire on land than they got back, but at sea it was a very different story - the RN was massively larger and more capable than any dominion navies (who were integrated into and controlled from the Admiralty in any case).

You might argue my outlook of Dominion (interesting term BTW) forces.
Dominion is the technical term for a state that was formerly in the British Empire but is now self-governing with the British Monarch as head of state. I think this still applies to Australia, Canada and New Zealand, although I would have to check.

[IRONMAN]

I do not approve of bombing civilians, but I see no problem in bombing an area if it is filled with factories or other legitimate targets. However, in all fairness, I must say that the US did the same thing over Japan near the end of the war when the Japanese would not surrender. I saw a documentary that discussed it and showed night-time incindiary raids over Japan by US bombers. They dropped huge amounts of incindiary bombs from low altitude over Japanese cities. Many civilians died in the terrible fires that resulted.

The thing is, the Japanese split up the work of making goods for the war and they did it in their own homes. The documentary showed Japanese footage of them making all manner of things, even metal things, in their homes with materials provided by the Japanese government. So, you could say that the civilian areas had become military tagets legitimately. It's a touchy subject though.

I can understand the feeling of wanting to though. The Japanese were ruthless. They bombed military field hospitals in the Pacific and their treatment of POW's was just as inhumane as the Germans was. I don't think it is an excuse for area bombing though, no matter who did it.

[Tubbyboy]

I can understand the feeling of wanting to though. The Japanese were ruthless. They bombed military field hospitals in the Pacific and their treatment of POW's was just as inhumane as the Germans was. I don't think it is an excuse for area bombing though, no matter who did it.

I think that the Japanese treatment of POWs was actually a lot worse than the Germans.

The treatment of other prisoners - Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, gypsies, Jehovahs witnesses (although I can understand that one :D), the retarded and others, however is an entirely different topic and one that IMO should never be forgotten.

[Bladensburg]

IIRC Lend/Lease wasn't all one way, billions of pounds worth of UK owned companies and investments were liquidated by the US. One of the reasons Britain was so shakey after the war was the loss of these overseas investments.

[Firefly]

IIRC Lend/Lease wasn't all one way, billions of pounds worth of UK owned companies and investments were liquidated by the US. One of the reasons Britain was so shakey after the war was the loss of these overseas investments.

As in WW1, the british bought goods from US (no Lend lease then) and had to sell their investments in US to a large extent. I think that before WW1 the Brits owned about 1/3 of US companies etc. Mind you, i think the Chinese own a fair proportion of US bonds now, same story, diffrent era.

[1000ydstare]

Bomber Harris was the man. And not a criminal.

The first bombing missions of the war were by Handly Page Hampdens against naval targets, because factories were classed as private property.

It was the germans who opened it right out to total war. They were the first to bomb civialians and the first to move the bombing on to the capital ie london.

Their stukas were used against unarmed ie usually civialian targets, mainly due to the fact that when they were used against countries like France and Britain with a higher level of technology than, say, Poland they suffered higher losses. They were extremely vulnerable in their "dive".

Just because the Germans lost, and their cities were ruined doesn't make Bomber Harris a bad man. He fought using their rules, and won. Dresden happened long after the inferno of Coventry.

[arhob1]

Someone above said:

"Area bombing had been advocated by all major military nations as a legitimate instrument of war. However, the bombing of cities (particularly the fire raid on Dresden) caused massively disproportionate casualties for any military advantage gained. "

In a full-on general war how do you decide what is proportionate and what is not?

From my point of view if bombing Dresden saved a single allied life and killed 20000 Germans then fair enough. We were at war after all. Imagine the hypothetical situation where you had to explain to a British widow that her husband had died because we didn't have the guts to area bomb the town producing the aircraft that killed him because of a "disproportionate risk" to German civilians. Wouldn't she ask whose side we were actually on? What if it was your life?

In the 3-4 years he was in command of Bomber Command he had a tough job to do which morals 60 years later and out of context struggle to understand. Personally I think him and his men were heroes. It is an absoluet trevesty that Churchill distanced himself from Harris after the war and Bomber Command never got a campaign medal. Albert Speir himself said that the allied bombing campaign was the biggest factor (or one of them - sorry I forget exactly) in Germany losing the war.

We owe those bomber command chaps a huge debt.

PS - The Brits recently helped the Germans to finish rebuilding the Frauen Kirsche in dresden - I wonder if the Germans will ever help to rebuild the many bombed our British Cathedrals/churches?

[Topor]

What happened at Guernica tore up the Rule Book & we all know who sanctioned THAT action.
Harris fought his War the best way he could, with the less than perfect instrument available to him & I am certain that if the Luftwaffe had built up a heavy bomber force, then they would have used the same strategy.

[Firefly]

What happened at Guernica tore up the Rule Book & we all know who sanctioned THAT action.
Harris fought his War the best way he could, with the less than perfect instrument available to him & I am certain that if the Luftwaffe had built up a heavy bomber force, then they would have used the same strategy.

Not quite true, when the Bomber Command chiefs proposed bombing the Rhur in 1940, the government dissallowed it as it was an attack on private property.

I think what finally turned Bopmber Command around was the German Blitz on London. From then on it was given a purpose and a leader in Harris that stuck to his theories of bombing incessantly.

It was at that time the only real way the British could take the war to Germany and a great many RAF crews paid for this with their lives.

I do however personally believe that Harris got sucked into his own Spin. I think that instead of area bombing cities to de-house workers, he could have went after the transportation and Oil networks as a priority. But as has been said often and is still true, hindsight is a wonderfull thing.

[2nd of foot]

I am some way into Bomber Command by Hastings but have put it down for a number of weeks now. I have just got to the part when Harris takes command. I will look over what I have read to get accurate info and post again. but it has highlighted a number of thing that I was not aware of ie the bombing of private property and who had the idea behind strategic bombing.

[Topor]

Firefly

At the time, Area Bombing was about the best the RAF could achieve:
Most crews did not have the navigational or bomb aiming skills to hit anything smaller than a city & often missed those as well.
It wasn't until Pathfinders, Master Bombers, Oboe, H2S, etc., were introduced that they could bomb with any semblance of accuracy & even then it was only exceptional crews like those of 617Sqn who had the skills to be effective.
Both the Oil & Transportation plans which came later in the war relied heavily on the USAAF daylight raids for hitting small targets with accuracy, whilst the RAF went for larger targets, such as marshalling yards.
Even 617Sqn had trouble hitting targets such as canals & viaducts at night.

[Twitch1]

I see no problem with the fact that the raid was simply meant to kill as many people- military and civilians as possible plus destroy as many structures as possible. Loss of human life is always regretable but it was unrestricted warfare.

Had the Luftwaffe enjoyed a long-range bomber force they would have gladly instigated the same raid on England earlier in the war.

It is lame to once again attempt to project today's morality or social conscience into the past but unfortunately that's what lots of folks do. They have no feel for what the mood was anywhere during the war and that it was seen as a "win at any cost to stop Hitler."

By the same token when V-1s and larger V-2s rained down on the civilians of Holland, Belgium and England how "rude" was that? Apart from the reasonable treatment of each others POWs and not employing bio/chemical agents it was no holds barred with the Germans. Modern people keep attempting to read some rules and morality into a global war. It's absurd.

Then we must consider the Tokyo napalm raids that killed many more civilians than were killed in Dresden. Is that too something "illegal?"

If someone desires to view events of the war through the distortion of the concept that civilians are somehow magically immune to injury in some fantasy rules of war that never existed save for some peoples' minds, they have failed to immerse themselves in history.

The German war industry began dispersing early on when Allied air attacks began gutting normal factory complexes. It's real easy to target a huge facility that builds Messerschmitts in ONE location. Break that manufacturing system into several parts and place them in clandestined locales that actually increased production after dispersion, and you might as well bomb hell out of everything just to make sure you got the intended target.

This may not apply to Dresden but you get the idea. As we bombed the easily targetable war materiel facilities the Germans dispersed them and production increased!

On March 9, 1945 Lemay began the concerted fire bombing of Japanese cities. Why? Because Jap civvies were makeing war products in their dispesed facilities in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe. These raids were effective in that before the next round of napalm attacks leaflets wee dropped waring of the fact and 8.5 million fled to the country to escape frying. With them in out of the urban areas war production nose dived.

And even with that they didn't surrender but prepared a hellatious defensive network of Kyushu and Hokkaido that was to be "last man" mentality.

The Dresden raid was done to please the Russians since they continually complained that they were suffering higher casualties relative to the Allies. Their revengful tactics had a name. It was called "terrorisation." GB was pressured by the Russians to wreak havoc amongst the German civilians.

The initial concept plan for Dresden was not instigated by Harris himself at all. It came from higher up. Can't you picture Churchill being lobbied by Stalin to step up to the plate and "go Russian" on those crazy Nazis?

General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to the Russians:

a. To speed up the advance of the Allied troops on the Western Front, for which the present situation is very favorable: (1) To defeat the Germans on the Eastern Front. (2) To defeat the German groupings which have advanced into the Ardennes. (3) The weakening of the German forces in the West in connection with the shifting of their reserves to the East (It is desirable to begin the advance during the first half of February).
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig).
c. Not permit the enemy to remove his forces from Italy


The Viet Cong used our dislike for seeing innocent civilians injured in Vietnam. I saw daily how they exploited and used them as chattel to sucker us into fights. They had absolutely no conscience about ending their lives so they could get a response from us. This was not isolated but was done on an ongoing, daily basis.

Non-combatants have always been in harm's way in warfare. They've been exploited by either side as they saw fit to gain advantages over their enemy. I say non-combatants and not innocents because many of the adults were engaged in war materiel production. They were contributing to the war effort.

This delusion that in January 1945 the war was all but over is hogwash. Hitler had just pulled off the Ardennes Offensive and we still hadn't landed on Iwo Jima or Okinawa that produced the most horriffic blood letting yet. The kamikazes were doing their thing in the Pacific and more German jets were hammering Allied bombers.

We only know that the war was "almost" over in a relative sense because we're sitting on our butts 60 here years later. No one knew how long the carnage would go on back then. This is why it is flawed to second guess "what they shoulda done was...."

We never knew then whether our enemies would use bio-chemical warfare as a last ditch effort. It's so easy to look back 60 years and conclude that wasn't a factor worth considering. Believe me it was considered by fighting men in early 1945.

I don't see anyone justifying the Nazi depoyment of V-1 and V-2 rockets that were made ONLY to kill civilians. I don't see anyone imagining that the Germans wouldn't have unleashed vicious bombing attacks on civilians had they possessed a substantial force of heavy bombers either. So why does it makes sense in the turmoil of times and fog of war that this one event was more evil than any other? The Brits were in their 6TH YEAR of eating Nazi crap and they were damned tired of it! Does anyone really believe that some bleating voice of tempering military actions would have been listened to then?

Dresden was the 7th largest Geman city with primary importance as a communications center. It was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone. Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler). Specific military installations in Dresden in February 1945 included barracks and hutted camps and at least one munitions storage depot.

The Berlin-Leipzig-Dresden railway complex was a major transportation crossroads logistically involved in the movement of German troops.

Here's the cities by population with the total bomb tonnage expended for the entire war:
Berlin- 4,339,000 67,607.6 tons, Hamberg- 1,129,000 38,687.6 tons,
Munich- 841,000 27,110.9 tons, Cologne 772,000 44,923.2 tons, Leipzig- 707,000 11,616.4 tons, Essen- 667,000 37,938.0 tons, Dresden- 642,000 7,100.5 tons.

The Russians pressured the other Allies for this raid. It's in the books. As a target of interest this came from ABOVE Harris. Harris and company only laid out the tactics.

There are no actual rules of war. Yes politicians may sit around and debate idealistic goals that combatants should strive for in the next war but when that conflict comes the rules mean nothing. All that exists is the collective moral code in practice by a given society at a given time.

This moral code may be something such as American and British airmen not strafing enemy pilots in their parachutes. And while this was not widespread in the Japanese Imperical Navy the Army practiced it often. Same goes for POW issues. While the Japs starved, beheaded, tortured and used them as slave labor, their prisoners, the western Allies treated theirs splendidly. The Japanese had no qualms about using biological and chemical weapons on a daily basis for 10 years in China. I dare say the British would not see that as cricket and follow suit.

I say this without malice or prejudice- please believe it from one who experienced it, there are no rules in war. There is only an accounting in the aftermath. If the city had been Liverpool and the Nazis were the victors would it be viewed the same? If the city was Manilla and the Japanese had won would they have wrung their hands? At any rate one can easily be clinical and dissect complex events in detached hindsight to rationalize any end they desire.

War crimes trials were in one sense to segregate torture, starvation, medical experimentation, perversion, mutilation, forced labor and such from an 88 mm artillery barrage that killed many civilians in a French village or bombing mission misses.

The fact that the aforementioned acts are commited at a very personal level often with a resulting euphoric satisfaction on the part of the perpetrator separates them from aerial bombing, artillery attacks or naval rifle bombardment.

There could be a case for the persecution of air-to-ground attack as a whole. What could be less fair? Why those new fangled aeroplanes come outta the heavens like wrathful angels killing poor soldiers on the ground without warning! The old fogies that dictate what the next conflict's fighting will be like (and are always wrong) could have lobbied that aerial warfare is abominal given the amount of destruction that can be unleashed upon the earth sometimes killing non-combatants.

I see this silly-azzed attempt for people of today to 2nd guess earlier generations and project morals in hindsight and never understand why that whole scenario is totally flawed.

[arhob1]

Twitch1 - that was a heck of a post - but I agree with everything you said.

Your statement:

"This delusion that in January 1945 the war was all but over is hogwash. Hitler had just pulled off the Ardennes Offensive and we still hadn't landed on Iwo Jima or Okinawa that produced the most horriffic blood letting yet. The kamikazes were doing their thing in the Pacific and more German jets were hammering Allied bombers. We only know that the war was "almost" over in a relative sense because we're sitting on our butts 60 here years later. No one knew how long the carnage would go on back then. This is why it is flawed to second guess "what they shoulda done was...." "

.....is absolutely true. It winds me up no end when people since the war (11 May 1945 on!) state that there was no need to keep bombing Germany and Dresden in particular as teh war was nearly over. Yeah right it was. What with jet aircraft, Battle of the Bulge and so on, it could have gone on for many many months and certainly could have gone either way at many times during its course.

I take confort from the fact that those who say that area bombing wasn't justified are ignorant of the facts and ignorant of what living under the Nazis would have meant.

PS - I'm still bitter about the fact that the Bomber Command chaps were belittled and marginalised after the war and DID NOT receive a camapign medal - an utter travesty.

Good post Twitch1.

[Firefly]

Good post matey. I agree, total war means total war.

Although by late 44 the RAF were as accurate by night as the USAF was by day.

The USAF was never that accurrate anyway, they never did put their pickle into the barrewl, the Norden was a great bombsight for Texas, but was something different for Europe.


Damn good post though..................

[Walther]

PS - The Brits recently helped the Germans to finish rebuilding the Frauen Kirsche in dresden - I wonder if the Germans will ever help to rebuild the many bombed our British Cathedrals/churches?

You just made a funny translation error:

Church in German is "Kirche"
"Kirsche" means cherry.

You just said that the British helped the Germeans to rebuild their women's cherries, .... after having popped them 60 years ago? :D

Jan

[Crab_to_be]

PS - The Brits recently helped the Germans to finish rebuilding the Frauen Kirsche in dresden - I wonder if the Germans will ever help to rebuild the many bombed our British Cathedrals/churches?

You just made a funny translation error:

Church in German is "Kirche"
"Kirsche" means cherry.

You just said that the British helped the Germeans to rebuild their women's cherries, .... after having popped them 60 years ago? :D

Jan

Does that idiom work in German or only when translated to English?

[arhob1]

Well picked up Walther!!!

:oops:

x100!

[1000ydstare]

Off topic everybody.

Just noticed walther that I have two PMs sitting in my outbox to you. Have you checked you PM box recently or did they just not go?

[Cash]

The definitive Harris biography is well worth reading -

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1853675555.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[WaistGunner]

I have to go with "bastard but OUR bastard". 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 wouldn't 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.

[pdf27]

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 wouldn't 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, I'm 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 it's 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 "precision" bombing by day.

[WaistGunner]

pdf27,

Thank you for the lead. I hadn't heard about the accuracy comparisions between the two. It really gives me something to delve into more.

[Firefly]

Check out the size of the Grand Slam carried by the Lanc and dropped accurately on targets such as the Bielefield Viaduct:

http://www.johnmullen.org.uk/aerospce/pics/bombs.htm

[pdf27]

pdf27,

Thank you for the lead. I hadn't heard about the accuracy comparisions between the two. It really gives me something to delve into more.
There's rather a good book on the squadron that should give you a good starting point by Paul Brickhill called "The Dam Busters" 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 that's the book - been a while since I read it and the copy is at my parent's house so I can't check it. That should give you enough basic information on sight designations, uses, tactics, etc. to start digging properly.

[Digger]

G'day,

Okay I'm 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.

[pdf27]

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.
IIRC most of them were hiding at Trincomalee, using the threat of a "fleet in being" 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 didn't have their own navies capable of doing so). However as they say no plan survives contact with the enemy, and this one certainly didn't.

[Digger]

G'day,

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 wasn't 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.

[Chevan]

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 German's cities it were always aimed into the center section. He didn't 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.

[Nickdfresh]

I do believe I heard that Harris was some what shunned in post-War British society, and that he was truly thought of as "our bastard," which he indeed was. Along with Gen. Curtis LeMay, was our American bastard.

[Nickdfresh]

According with the standards of Nuremberg tribunal Bomber Harris had to be hung as the war criminal...


Sure, right after Stalin and most of the Soviet High Command.

[Chevan]

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.

[Nickdfresh]

Agree .
Together with Trumen, Cherchill and all of allied Airforce Hight Command for genocide of Japanese cities.

We'll need more judges and lawyers.:)

Who said this?:

"Killing ______ didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I _____ the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

"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, you're not a good soldier. "

[Chevan]

We'll need more judges and lawyers.:)

Who said this?:

"Killing ______ didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I _____ the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

"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, you're not a good soldier. "

I don't know :)
Really who said this?

[Nickdfresh]

Gen. Curtis LeMay USAF -A certifiable nutcase by the Kennedy Administration....

[pdf27]

According with the standards of Nuremberg tribunal Bomber Harris had to be hung as the war criminal.
Normally I just let your insinuations pass by, but I can't just let this one slide as it's too blatant.
The counts at Nuremberg were:
1) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
3) War crimes
4) 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.


With the burning by napalm and by the phosphoric bombs of German's cities it were always aimed into the center section. He didn't 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.
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.

[Chevan]

The counts at Nuremberg were:
1) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace
3) War crimes
4) Crimes against humanity

Hi pdf.
You are the "danger" 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.


... Counts 1 and 2 do not apply to Harris.
Oops, are you sure ?,... ;)

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

[Firefly]

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.

[Nickdfresh]

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 "good-order and conduct," the discipline, of their troops.

And I am no fan of Bomber Harris or Crazy LeMay...

[Chevan]

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.

Firefly , indeed i didn't wish to repeat again Dresden thread .
I just posted my personal oppinion about Harris( by the way very interesting person) and explained why.
But pdf began "to play the old plate" and I was forced to answer.

If you continue with this line I will have to think seriously about removing any posts.


OK is for me.

[Firefly]

Thats fine. Regarding Harris, we cannot label him with todays values or indeed take him out of context.

Harris was a bomber exponent between the wars at a time when it was thought that bombers were paramount. Indeed before about 1937 the whole of the RAF was geared around bombers and not fighters. The fighter pilots were regarded somewhat as second class and an irrelavance to the RAF.

You could say that the whole of the RAF was imbued with the bomber spirit and so it isnt surprising to see Bomber Command attempting with the tools at hand from late 1942 to realise the pre-war theories of Douhet etc.

What I'm really trying to say is that the man was like many many others, a product of his time.

[Lancer44]

I think that all members participating in this discussion seems to forget about psychological effect which bombing of German cities had on German soldiers at the fronts. All fronts. Also German administration of occupied countries all over Europe was subjected to intense psychological pressure.

It's something which is hard to measure, but certainly bombing and thinking about families being subjected to it was not so nice for German soldiers.
Once again, area bombing was not invented by Britons or Yanks.

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

[Chevan]

I think that all members participating in this discussion seems to forget about psychological effect which bombing of German cities had on German soldiers at the fronts. All fronts. Also German administration of occupied countries all over Europe was subjected to intense psychological pressure.

It's something which is hard to measure, but certainly bombing and thinking about families being subjected to it was not so nice for German soldiers.
Once again, area bombing was not invented by Britons or Yanks.

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 :)

[Nickdfresh]

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.

[Digger]

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.

[Chevan]

Hi Digger
G'day,

It's all very easy to be critical and revisionist of Harris some sixty plus years later, but was the alternative?

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.

[Digger]

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.

[Nickdfresh]

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.

[pdf27]

2. 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.
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.

[Chevan]

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.

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?

[redcoat]

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.
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.

[Nickdfresh]

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.

[Chevan]

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

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?;)
Yes , certainly i am the european. :) 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.
:)

[Chevan]

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.



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

[2nd of foot]

[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”.

[Chevan]

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.

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.

[Firefly]

Harris actually said something very similar to the statement.

"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Its well documented.

[George Eller]

Harris actually said something very similar to the statement.

"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Its well documented.
-

Hosea 8:7

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind..."

KJV

-

[2nd of foot]

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.

[D502]

...so people in glasshouses shouldn’t through stones.

You're not serious, are you?

I voted "A pragmatic wartime leader". From a sober point-of-view...

[Gen. Sandworm]

You're not serious, are you?

I voted "A pragmatic wartime leader". From a sober point-of-view...

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.

[Nickdfresh]

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.

Maybe we should have a "bastard-off" to see which bomber general was the biggest bastard of all? ;)

[Poor Old Spike]

Hitler bombed my mam in Leicester England in 1940 but missed.
He also area-bombed other Brit cities.
So I applaud Harris's famous quote -
"They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind"..

[Digger]

The trouble with modern history is we tend to be too revisionist when it comes to topics such as WWII. It's all very nice to sit back in our nice, comfortable homes, our warm and fuzzy lifestyles and bitch and moan how hard life is for us. Similarly we can in our leisure time hypothesize how WWII could have been fought differently.

It's so easy to fall into this way of thinking, because we never flew in a narrow metal tube loaded with bombs and fuel while high explosives were flung at us and fighters tried to shoot us down. All these men and Harris were trying to do was to end a war not started by them, to defeat a crazed madman whose view of the world was a perfect blond Ayran race who either exterminated or enslaved anyone not fitting their vision of a perfect master race.

For all of you who complain about Harris, Bomber Command and the tactics used to defeat Hitler's regime, remember it was men like these, as well as the men of all Allied nations who fought, died and eventually won a war so you could live in your nice comfortable suburban box and judge their deeds.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Flammpanzer]

Did what he had to do. There was no other way to attack Germany in those days, he had to use area bombing because that's all we could use.

especially "newer" historians are sure that it would have been better to attack only military targets and not to kill hundred thousands of helpless children and women (600.000 estimated, millions homeless).

So I applaud Harris's famous quote -
"They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind"..

if you have in mind that half of all 7000 ever built lancaster were brought down, it was even a high price for the BC. a good quote for the defenders, which I as a german applaud to ... so that`s the other side.

there are also facts that show that these bombardments of the cities had hardly no influence on the lenght of the war. the aim was to demoralize the germans, but like the british under the blitz, the germans were not demoralized, they only knew that there was sheer terror against them.

by allied understanding, if he was a german, he is a war criminal. there is no discussion about german attacks on civilians and it is the same cruel, unnecessary and damned thing, but even this is no legitimation (in my mind) to do the same and to feel free to do it. but as we all knew, tribunals were only done by the winners. it is often forgotten that the brits bombed german cities early in the war (on the german coast in the north-west), so it is not the point to say it is so important to find out who started the slaughter.

"die geschichte schreiben die sieger." (the story is always written by the winners).

DER BRAND

ALS FEUER VOM HIMMEL FIEL

2 newer german books about the bombings, interesting to read.

[Chevan]

Ha Flammpanzer
And welcome to the board.
Thanks for the post,finally we saw here the real German oppinion whithout ass-licking of victors.

... it is often forgotten that the brits bombed german cities early in the war (on the german coast in the north-west), so it is not the point to say it is so important to find out who started the slaughter.

This is interesting i think. What can you tell us about early british bombings of Germany?

Cheers.

[Egorka]

The amount of the british bombers lost in the attack:
1941 - 2.5%
1942 - 4.0%
1943 - 3.7%
1944 - 2.2%
1945 - 1.1%

Regarding the early allied bombing, "the first one took place on the 16-May-1940 against targets in Ruhr area, Hamburg, Hannover and Aachen. After that the bombings continue practicaly uninterupted with slow increase in intencity".

[Chevan]

Thanks mate.
So am i right understand , the Britain began to bomb the Germany first?

[redcoat]

it is often forgotten that the brits bombed german cities early in the war (on the german coast in the north-west), so it is not the point to say it is so important to find out who started the slaughter.


Nonsense.
The RAF was banned from bombing any land targets in Germany at the start of the war. They were allowed only to attack warships at sea, and were not even allowed to attack warships too close to the shore, in case of civilian casualties.

In March 1940 the Germans bombed a number of land based military targets in Scotland, killing a civilian. The RAF were then allowed to attack a German seaplane base on the island of Hornum in retaliation, chosen because it was well away from civilian areas.

The RAF were not allowed to attack targets in Germany until the 11th May 1940, after German bombing attacks on towns and cities in the west. At that point the RAF were allowed to bomb road and railway targets west of the Rhine.

The RAF were still not allowed to bomb industrial targets in Germany until after the raid on Rotterdam, when the prohibition was lifted. They were expected to bring their bombs back if the individual factory they were supposed to bomb was not identified.


It was not until after the area attacks on Coventry and a number of other British cities in late 1940 that the RAF was allowed to used the same tactics in their attacks on Germany,

The first German town or city to be bombed in WW2 in which there were civilian casualties was the town of Freiburg on the 10th May 1940. There were 57 deaths, of which 22 were children. The ironic bit of this sad story is that the airforce which had bombed Freiburg was the Luftwaffe !!!!!!!
Three He-111s had lost their way on a bombing mission to Dijon airfield in France, and bombed Freiburg in error.

The Germans never let out the true information, but used this attack as an excuse for their own bombing campaign on Allied towns and cities

[Chevan]

Nonsense.
The RAF was banned from bombing any land targets in Germany at the start of the war. They were allowed only to attack warships at sea, and were not even allowed to attack warships too close to the shore, in case of civilian casualties.

In March 1940 the Germans bombed a number of land based military targets in Scotland, killing a civilian. The RAF were then allowed to attack a German seaplane base on the island of Hornum in retaliation, chosen because it was well away from civilian areas.

The RAF were not allowed to attack targets in Germany until the 11th May1940, after German bombing attacks on towns and cities in the west. At that point the RAF were allowed to bomb road and railway targets west of the Rhine.

The RAF were still not allowed to bomb industrial targets in Germany until after the raid on Rotterdam, when the prohibition was lifted. They were expected to bring their bombs back if the individual factory they were supposed to bomb was not identified.


It was not until after the area attacks on Coventry and a number of other British cities in late 1940 that the RAF was allowed to used the same tactics in their attacks on Germany,

Well we see the point. Good redcoat.
Are any other opinions gentlemens?

[Flammpanzer]

So am i right understand , the Britain began to bomb the Germany first?

that way it is not true (and I have never said or meant it that way by the way) but "nonsense" will not get it either, I think. I just tried to say that both sides started early with the bombing of civilians.

The amount of the british bombers lost in the attack:
1941 - 2.5%
1942 - 4.0%
1943 - 3.7%
1944 - 2.2%
1945 - 1.1%

regarding the losses of british heavy bombers: the information can be found in the book "als feuer vom himmel fiel" from stephan burgdorff and christian habbe, bonn 2004. (I found the information in other british (!) literature, too.) they relate to actual data from the BC and documents. the loss rate was some times over 10%, so the numbers named here seem too low, but I can understand that some like to believe that the BC was a brave, effective and nealy unbeatable weapon. but reality was a bit different: the total loss of british crew members that took part in the bombings is rated with 55.000 airmen, so the loss of 600.000 civil lives was not for nothing. sorry, it is hard to say that, but when I hear how mr. harris is adored here, I only could puke ... there is no doubt that germany and the germans of those days have a great guilt to bear, but I do not think it was heroic or neccessary to kill civilians in such a great manner - on both sides.

jens

[Chevan]

regarding the losses of british heavy bombers: the information can be found in the book "als feuer vom himmel fiel" from stephan burgdorff and christian habbe, bonn 2004. (I found the information in other british (!) literature, too.) they relate to actual data from the BC and documents. the loss rate was some times over 10%, so the numbers named here seem too low, but I can understand that some like to believe that the BC was a brave, effective and nealy unbeatable weapon. but reality was a bit different: the total loss of british crew members that took part in the bombings is rated with 55.000 airmen, so the loss of 600.000 civil lives was not for nothing. sorry, it is hard to say that, bit when I hear how mr. harris is adored here, I could puke ...

jens

OK now i understand.
And i have to agree that the strategic bombing was the most wasteful and sensless way to fight with Germany. The whole half of Britain budget were lost for the "effective" bombers.
Moreover some our britains friend even proved for themself that those strategic bombings distracted the large part of the German defense industry. So therefore it was legitime and usefull;)
Even in Dresden some of western historians founded the "importaint" war industry objects like the Optic plant. But what's strange this plant "accidentally" didn't got into the zone of carpet bombing. Even the realway station was damaged insignificantly. But the centre of city was a goal for the bombers -they simply killed refugers and sitizents.

bit when I hear how mr. harris is adored here, I could puke ...

That's the REAL germans think - Do you see our Britis/US friends?
And who will say more that the genocide of german population was needed for the "great war effect"?

Cheers.

[Egorka]

The bomber loss number are from a 1947 year book. And note that they are given per year. One given attack could have higher lose rate, of course.

[redcoat]

that way it is not true (and I have never said or meant it that way by the way) but "nonsense" will not get it either, I think. I just tried to say that both sides started early with the bombing of civilians.

The Germans started September 1 1939,
Britain May 11th 1940.

[redcoat]

. sorry, it is hard to say that, but when I hear how mr. harris is adored here, I only could puke ...
I get the same urge when people start singing the praises of the Waffen SS

[2nd of foot]

The Germans started September 1 1939,
Britain May 11th 1940.

No Red coat you are forgetting Spain Poland, and Holland Britain was just one in a long line. The Germans made it quite clear from the start that they saw civilians as a legitimate target. They viewed the terrorisation of the people as a way of to victory.

[Egorka]

2nd of foot:
According to your logic UK should also start extermination of jews... just because Germans did it. Rediculous, right?
Or maybe we should be resposible of our dids and not blame the other side so much... just curious...

[Chevan]

I get the same urge when people start singing the praises of the Waffen SS

Absolutly agree redcoat.
But I think you have to agree that Waffen SS it's not justification for Bomber Harris's unhuman tactic of firebombing civilians.

[2nd of foot]

2nd of foot:
According to your logic UK should also start extermination of jews... just because Germans did it. Rediculous, right?
Or maybe we should be resposible of our dids and not blame the other side so much... just curious...

Not at all. I was referring to Redcoat who said that:-

The Germans started September 1 1939,

As has been pointed out the RAF at the start of the war was specifically ordered not to attack civilian target even if they were being used for military work as they were classed as private property. It was a political decision not an operational one and until it was seen that Germany was willing to attack UK civilian targets the politicians would not let the RAF attack non-military targets. Within Britain politicians control the military not the other way round.

Were as I pointed out the Germans specifically targeted civilians and civilian property to cause terror as a process of war not as a side effect. This is a tactic they used in the first war with Zeppelin raids on Britain, a tactic that was very effective in causing terror in the civil populas. Max Hasting in his book Bomber Command suggests that this was a major factor in Trenchard’s view on the concept of future operation of the RAF and how airpower could win wars.

Using your warped logic the British should have attacked the USSR because Germany did.

[Egorka]

2nd of foot:
It is all right. But it should also be mentioned that at the end of the war UK killed roughly 10 times more civilians in Germany than Germany in UK. Only Drezden almost made them even.

But you are right the Germans started.

.

[Flammpanzer]

sorry for the posts before. no idea how this comes.


hello friends!

first of all, I know, it is a really delicate topic, I fully can understand any brit who has no problems with the attacks because the germans did the same resp. started.

Were as I pointed out the Germans specifically targeted civilians and civilian property to cause terror as a process of war not as a side effect.

when you compare the productivity of the german inudstry, you will find out that the highest output was in 1944 (due to decentalitzation of production and other measures), the effect of destroying industry was there, of course, but it was far less than expected. more effective where the attacks to destroy any kind of oil and gas-production and the infrastructure (railroads, streets).

regarding the german terror-bombing mentioned:

it should be said that cities like rotterdam and warsaw f. e. were military targets per definition (defended, not willing to surrender). even many of the earlier attacks on london where often pointed to targets with a military background (oil-dumps etc.).

sorry for offending anyone (if so), I just tried to make clear the view "from the other side". it is a question of morale, I guess. okay, we started at least, but is it moralic to do the same in a even bader manner? no. is it moralic to kill so many civilians? I do not mention holocaust here, because this has nothing to do with the bombardment - there never should be any sort of comparison between the two. this was without doubt the biggest crime of all time, but every normal thinking human should be aware that such a mass-slaughter is a crime and so Harris is a true criminal, allthough he is "yours".

btw: churchill thought over the use of poison gas to rot out any german. maybe it was pity because the german poison gas at that time was far superior to the allied and the response could have bring some surprise to the other side. (respecting your point of view, but please understand the the other.)

jens

[pdf27]

more effective where the attacks to destroy any kind of oil and gas-production and the infrastructure (railroads, streets).
We know that now - largely thanks to the postwar report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey. The problem is, we didn't know that at the time, and furthermore the air forces we had were supported by a huge industrial base and were only capable of efficiently attacking certain types of target. RAF Bomber Command for instance was (with a few exceptions) incapable of hitting precision targets reliably.

it should be said that cities like rotterdam and warsaw f. e. were military targets per definition (defended, not willing to surrender).
Following strictly the rules of the Hague convention in force at the time, this is true. However, it is also true - to the same extent - of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. You may want to rethink your arguament in this case...

[Chevan]

We know that now - largely thanks to the postwar report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey. The problem is, we didn't know that at the time, and furthermore the air forces we had were supported by a huge industrial base and were only capable of efficiently attacking certain types of target. RAF Bomber Command for instance was (with a few exceptions) incapable of hitting precision targets reliably.

Hi pdf glad to see you again.
Firstly it's wrong the British high command didn't know about more effective bombing of oil plants and strategic industry. But this objects were good protected by the AAA means -much better than cities. They refuse it. Instead it was taken the Harris plan - total distraction German cities as more "convenient target".

Following strictly the rules of the Hague convention in force at the time, this is true. However, it is also true - to the same extent - of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. You may want to rethink your arguament in this case...

Right this is true. The bombing the cities which had a importaint military objects ( or enemy troops) is not forbidden.
But as you've already know the senslees distruction of cities , villages ( i.e. hadn't military mean) is the matter of Nurenberg tribunal ;)

Cheers.

[Chevan]

Did what he had to do. There was no other way to attack Germany in those days, he had to use area bombing because that's all we could use.

This is wrong becouse already after june 1944 was open second front.As you may be know the most cruel and senslees firebombing was in preiod after landing in France i/e/ summer 1944 - march 1945
Moreover there was a point if not dear strategic bombing ( which absorbed a great part of British war budget) they could landed early.

But we go around the whole thread;)

Cheers

[Flammpanzer]

Following strictly the rules of the Hague convention in force at the time, this is true. However, it is also true - to the same extent - of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. You may want to rethink your arguament in this case...

no. as I mentioned before: it`s a question of morale and ehtics. do I have to commit the same crime it someone does this to me? maybe, I can understand the reaction of course but this makes Harris not an innocent war-hero at all. and we are talking about him here. I did not try to excuse any attacks of that sort but I have the feeling that there is a strong belief that the german airforce only tried to wipe out all cities of the reich-enemies and that the mass-bombardments were a logic answer to the luftwaffe-raids. many of the earlier attacks of the luftwaffe were taken out to military or strategic targets int the cities and civil losses were accepted indeed. BUT even coventry was a valuable target by their means as they tried to destroy industry, this was the first aim and NOT to kill as many inhabitants as possible! so there are always slight differences that are overlooked. to pick out dresden - it now seems quite clear that this city had NO military (only masses of fleeing persons and some soldiers hasting back from the east got stuck there) value at all. it was pure mass-murder, nothing else. no matter with what oher attacks this will be excused. and once again for all: I do not try to excuse any German aggression and I understand responses from the other, but there happended enough bad to innocents that was not heroic, even the winners did it.

but maybe we are turning around here in fact. :neutral:

jens

[pdf27]

Hi pdf glad to see you again.
Firstly it's wrong the British high command didn't know about more effective bombing of oil plants and strategic industry. But this objects were good protected by the AAA means -much better than cities. They refuse it. Instead it was taken the Harris plan - total distraction German cities as more "convenient target".
Yeah, I stick my head above the parapet somewhat at random from time to time. I feel a bit like a gopher actually!
Have you got a source on the protection of oil refineries and the like by flak? That's a new statement to me, and given the propensity of the RAF to bomb the Ruhr (a heavily industrial target) on a regular basis it seems rather odd to me that the RAF would be deliberately ignoring such targets. They were taking such horrendous losses anyway (only U-boat crews suffered higher proportional casualties in the entire war) that a small amount of incremental risk for a greater effect would probably have been accepted.

Right this is true. The bombing the cities which had a importaint military objects ( or enemy troops) is not forbidden.
But as you've already know the senslees distruction of cities , villages ( i.e. hadn't military mean) is the matter of Nurenberg tribunal ;)
Are you thinking of Oradour-sur-Glaine, Lidice and the like? They're the only sort of cases I can think of which ended up before the Allied Military Commission, and the difference is that under the Hague convention these places were undefended, in that there were no ground troops offering resistance to the Germans moving in. That's the critical difference - one was legal under Hague 1907 (however morally objectionable) the other illegal.

[redcoat]

no. as I mentioned before: it`s a question of morale and ehtics. do I have to commit the same crime it someone does this to me? maybe, I can understand the reaction of course but this makes Harris not an innocent war-hero at all. and we are talking about him here.
Seeing that I've already explained in another thread that no Luftwaffe officer ever faced criminal charges over the bombing of British civilian targets, why should it be any different for Harris ???




I did not try to excuse any attacks of that sort but I have the feeling that there is a strong belief that the german airforce only tried to wipe out all cities of the reich-enemies and that the mass-bombardments were a logic answer to the luftwaffe-raids. many of the earlier attacks of the luftwaffe were taken out to military or strategic targets int the cities and civil losses were accepted indeed. BUT even coventry was a valuable target by their means as they tried to destroy industry, this was the first aim and NOT to kill as many inhabitants as possible! so there are always slight differences that are overlooked. to pick out dresden - it now seems quite clear that this city had NO military (only masses of fleeing persons and some soldiers hasting back from the east got stuck there) value at all.
According to the 1944 handbook of the German Army High Command’s Weapon Office, the city of Dresden contained 127 factories that had been assigned their own three-letter manufacturing codes…. This assured secrecy, while at the same time allowing military authorities to identify individual weapons, munitions, and military equipment back to their manufacturing sources. ……

As the 1942 Dresdner Jahrbook (Dresden Yearbook) boasted:
Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city, with its immortal architectural monuments and unique landscape environment, would rightly be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresden.. one of the foremost industrial locations.

There is also the fact that Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden was connected to both cities by two main lines. The density, volume, and importance of the Dresden-Saxony railway system within the German geography and economy is seen in the fact that in 1939 Saxony was seventh in area among the major German states, ranked seventh in its railway mileage, but ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail.


Both, or either of, these facts make Dresden a legitimate target

[redcoat]

About the effectiveness of the bombing.

In Jan 1945 Albert Speer compiled a report on German industry which said that in 1944 bombing had cost them 31% of aircraft production, 35% of tank production and 42% of truck production.

[Flammpanzer]

Both, or either of, these facts make Dresden a legitimate target

if you try hard you always manage to make a civil target legitime for bombing. it`s just the same with cities like coventry where also industrial plants were bombed - it is the same argument the other way round but not many brits will accept that, I guess. but I have to admit we are turning around somehow.


In Jan 1945 Albert Speer compiled a report on German industry which said that in 1944 bombing had cost them 31% of aircraft production, 35% of tank production and 42% of truck production.

this is the result of the bombing of industrial complexes, not becaue they bombed the houses and the people. even the argument to wipe out the workers will not prove because there were masses of slave workers.

Seeing that I've already explained in another thread that no Luftwaffe officer ever faced criminal charges over the bombing of British civilian targets, why should it be any different for Harris ???

this is exactly what I mean: it is always the question of equality here: the germans and japanese have not deserved a better treating because they acted the same. but to fight crime with crime makes the whole thing not a good one and harris not a hero. but there are slight differences in the way people here deal with the past. except some stupid neo-nazis, nobody here would celebrate a person like hermann göring f. e.. it seems, this is different in other countries.

jens

[redcoat]

if you try hard you always manage to make a civil target legitime for bombing. it`s just the same with cities like coventry where also industrial plants were bombed - it is the same argument the other way round but not many brits will accept that, I guess. but I have to admit we are turning around somehow.
Seeing the British have never considered the bombing of Coventry a war crime as such, why should we consider Dresden to be a war crime ?



this is the result of the bombing of industrial complexes, not becaue they bombed the houses and the people. even the argument to wipe out the workers will not prove because there were masses of slave workers.
Not so.
The British copied the tactic of area bombing not out of revenge, but because they had noted that disrupting the infrastructure( housing, utilities, etc) of the workforce and their families had as an important effect on production as bombing the factories did.


this is exactly what I mean: it is always the question of equality here: the germans and japanese have not deserved a better treating because they acted the same. but to fight crime with crime makes the whole thing not a good one and harris not a hero. but there are slight differences in the way people here deal with the past. except some stupid neo-nazis, nobody here would celebrate a person like hermann göring f. e.. it seems, this is different in other countries.

jens
It is a question of equality. The bombing of Britain by the Germans isn't considered a war crime, so why should the bombing of Germany be considered a war crime ??????

[Egorka]

Redcoat:

So you agree that they bombed 600.000 civilians (children, women, elderly) on purpose? Right?

[Chevan]

Have you got a source on the protection of oil refineries and the like by flak? That's a new statement to me, and given the propensity of the RAF to bomb the Ruhr (a heavily industrial target) on a regular basis it seems rather odd to me that the RAF would be deliberately ignoring such targets.
Well our "fovorite" J.Fuller wrote in "Second world war"

To destroy with the aid of those existed then means entire or large part of the German defense industry was clearly impossible. It was considered that the military plants of Germany were placed in the territory into 130 sq. miles and to subject to their bombardments even for several years it would require, possibly, such astronomical quantity of aircraft, that all industrial resources of England would not make it possible to build them.
This is why one ought not to have undertaken the attempt, which, however, was made. If Churchill thought strategically, instead of thinking about the devastation, then it would become clear that the objects of bombardments had to be not industrial enterprises themselves, but their energy sources, i.e., coal and oil. If these sources steadily were weakened, then in the final analysis German industry to 90% was stopped.
Against this there were only two possible objections. The first consisted in the fact that carbon mines is difficult to destroy, and the second - that the oil is produced in few and, therefore, strongly protected points; therefore films on them would bypass very dear
The first difficulty, however, it was not more than that being seeming. If we continuously bombard the railroads, which lead into the carbon regions of the ruhr and saar (each roads they were close purposes), then coal could not be exported.
However, none of these arguments, probably, was not discussed also for that simple reason, that the destruction of industry was only the part of the general plan of the devastation of Germany and terrorization of its citizen. In any case, this is confirmed by the measures, which up to the spring 1944 can be distributed to two stages: 1) economic offensive, 2) moral offensive.

And my notice:
In Romanian oil fields Ploeshty there was a powerfull AAA-defence.
It was much easy to bomb the germans cities then the strategic objects indeed.

Are you thinking of Oradour-sur-Glaine, Lidice and the like? They're the only sort of cases I can think of which ended up before the Allied Military Commission, and the difference is that under the Hague convention these places were undefended, in that there were no ground troops offering resistance to the Germans moving in. That's the critical difference - one was legal under Hague 1907 (however morally objectionable) the other illegal.
We have already discussed this early, right. So i don't wish to repit it again especially for you dear pdf.


Cheers.

[Chevan]

Seeing the British have never considered the bombing of Coventry a war crime as such, why should we consider Dresden to be a war crime ?

becouse Germans didn't used the carpet firebombing tactic agains centres of cities which had not millitary sence ( i/e/ against civilians). This tactic let to burn the civilians in the scale which couldn't be equaled with Coventry.
Moreover the mass killing of germans was the primary goal of strategic bombing.
unlike the britain Germany never spended the half of war budger to the bombing which was directed mostly to the terrorizing of civilians.

It is a question of equality. The bombing of Britain by the Germans isn't considered a war crime, so why should the bombing of Germany be considered a war crime ??????
This is personal problem of allies- why they didn't demand to judge the Goering also and for terrible bombing of Britain.
I heared it was the spesial point not to create the danger juridical precident. In fact the Nurenderg city ( like and other german cities) was fully distructed by allies bombing.
So it would be much easy to hung Goering for the Holocaust then for his real crimes.

Cheers.

[redcoat]

So it would be much easy to hung Goering for the Holocaust then for his real crimes.

Cheers.
So in your view the holocaust wasn't real then ?

[Chevan]

So in your view the holocaust wasn't real then ?
Holocaust really was, but the figure of 6 million is very exaggerated and has no real basis.
The official "theory of Holocaust" try to represent the killing the jews as the main goal for the Nazi. This is wrong becouse the his main task was to capture the Eastern territories and people as the slaves. The killing of low races ( and the jews partically) particulary was n't primary aim for the Hitler.
If you wath to the statistic of millions victims you 'll learn that the reall henocide was in the East for the Ukrainian, Belorussian, Polish and Russian native peoples (which had n't any relation to the jews).
But jewish mass-media tryed to represent the jews as the main victims of Nazi. This is wrong IMO.
If you wish you could believe this, but just simple critic analysis give to you the refuse some of its arguments.

Cheers.

[Egorka]

Redcoat:

Here we go again... Holocaust card being played...

[BDL]

Redcoat:

So you agree that they bombed 600.000 civilians (children, women, elderly) on purpose? Right?

1,000 heavy bombers don't generally arrive over a city and drop 10,000,000-odd pounds of high explosives by accident...

[pdf27]

This is wrong becouse the his main task was to capture the Eastern territories and people as the slaves. The killing of low races ( and the jews partically) particulary was n't primary aim for the Hitler.
Wasn't he after "Lebensraum" (literally, room in which to live) rather than slaves? If so, surely it would be a matter of national policy to depopulate the captured reasons. Certainly, the Germans made quite a good start on depopulating the areas of Poland and the Soviet Union they captured. In Poland something like 25% of the population died during the war.

[redcoat]

Redcoat:

So you agree that they bombed 600.000 civilians (children, women, elderly) on purpose? Right?
Odd that you missed out the word 'men' in your list of civilians :roll:

[redcoat]

becouse Germans didn't used the carpet firebombing tactic agains centres of cities which had not millitary sence ( i/e/ against civilians).

Bath, Canterbury, Cambridge, etc, are all well known industrial areas, of course :roll:

Moreover the mass killing of germans was the primary goal of strategic bombing.
Quite simply that's a total and utter lie.
The goal was to disrupt both the infostructure, and the civilian populations in the towns enough to effect the German war effort

[redcoat]

Redcoat:

Here we go again... Holocaust card being played...
I'm not the one downplaying it.
Just as a matter of interest, do you agree with him that the 'jewish' holocaust was in his words 'very exaggerated' and the 6 million figure is wrong.

[pdf27]

Quite simply that's a total and utter lie.
The goal was to disrupt both the infostructure, and the civilian populations in the towns enough to effect the German war effort
Not exactly - more like one of a number of goals. At certain points of the war Harris would quite likely have exterminated every single German if given the choice, and been backed wholeheartedly by the population of the allies. That he - thankfully - lacked the means to do so limited the destruction he was able to do.
Incidentally, with the technology of the time it was very difficult indeed to destroy industrial targets without hitting the workers very hard. The workforce would live literally just outside the factory gates in many cases, and accurately targeting such a factory in blackout conditions with primitive instrumentation and under fire is very