Bomber boys - bbc one
 

Hey dudes,

Just saw a trailer for a documentary on bomber crews that is on tonight at 9:00 on bbc one... might have to check it out.

Looks like you will get to see a lot of Lancaster action :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01byv2g

Thanks for the reminder. Looking forward to this one. PPP

Thanks for the heads up...should be good :grin:

yup, it's on my record list :)

Very very good show,and surely an unbiased one, well done to BBC et al

Argh missed it. Will have to get it on iplayer.

Was great, very well done. Sure to be repeated.

Defo worth it, still not quite clear why the McGregor bros get all the fun though ;-)

Did anybody see the one on the Spitfire?

Yeah, jammy gits!

I am not jealous at all ;)

Missed it completely. Anyone know if it's to be repeated or will I have to watch it on i-player?

Edit: Just watched on i-player.

Superb.

I'm sure it will be repeated, but its on i player.

Its a good watch to.

Just watched it on i-player.

Excellent. And so's this;

http://www.bombercommand.com/

Oh, and Krupi, thanks for the heads up. Wouldn't've known about it at all but for the post! Cheers. ;)

Thats been far to long coming imo. shameful really.

Totally agree. As the RAF vet said in the documentary: "too little and above all too late".

Very beautiful documentary!!!!

Thanks for the heads up Kruppi! :)

~S~

Finally saw it on iplayer.Excellent programme!

I am aware that it is not relevant in this thread but, are you guys aware of the Discovery channel JETSTREAM series (Canadian Air Force Fighter Training)?


~S~

Far from diminishing the efforts of any allied soldier who died fighting nationalsocialism, i find it very disturbing, to see this part of the RAF, which most prominent actions were, especially in the hindsight, acts of terrorism, getting a memorial.

I understand the mixed feelings, but you know, in the end of the day one has to think of it for what it is, a celebration of those brave guys who were asked to go do a job which wasn't great and that was deadly serious. Should we differentiate because they were sent to fly a Lancaster instead of a Spitfire? No, and I don't think the intent is to celebrate the deaths they caused, but their bravery and courage, their will to fight for their country.

The price of Total War is that we're all involved, if anything I would like to see the Germans doing the same for their fallen and forgotten soldiers of both wars, all in all those poor ** were only obeying orders, it's not like they had much of a choice.

IF there was a memorial for Bomber Harris, on the other hand, I'd be quite annoyed..

The better idea, imo, would have been a RAF memorial.

there's plenty of RAF memorials, but none dedicated to the "bomber boys".

Are there any memorials to the German U Boat crews who died in WWII ? Arnt they in a similar situation to the RAF bomber crews. The RAF bomber crews suffered a terrible loss rate during the war,possibly the most dangerous job of any in the British military, and yet because of the misguided way in which they were used, and the terrible civilian losses caused by area bombing their valour was never officially recognised.
The UBoat crews are in a similar situation, they also suffered massive losses, they were hated and feared by the allies, and the indescriminate sinking of shipping was considered "illegal" at the time.
Both the UBoat and the Bomber were considered war winning weapons at the time,and in retrospect (isnt hindsight a wonderfull thing) they could have been.
Germany never had enough UBoats in the early war years,and in later years allied numbers,technology and knowhow decisively defeated the UBoat threat.
Britain devoted a very high percentage of her war effort to the bomber fleet. Yet Harris showed a lack of imagination and an inflexible attitude as to where to use this huge bomber weapon.

The Lancaster bomber was not the most succesful British bomber. Four merlin engines, seven crew and all that effort to build that magnificent aircraft and they made about seven trips before being lost or written off, all to indescriminatly scatter some bombs somewhere in Germany, what a waste. the most efficient British bomber of WWII was the mosquito, its survival rate was very high and it was a lot cheaper to make, it also benefitted from having a smaller crew and could be a lot more precise on hitting specific targets.

guys, it's about celebrating the men.

As a matter of fact there is a U-Boat memorial site for both wars at Laboe, close to Kiel.

But i think that that bombers and U-Boats in their roles aren't comparable.

There is no memorial for the Luftwaffe, though. They were also misguided by their leaders. :D

I'm afraid you are going to be annoyed ... http://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/bomber-harris

PPP

didn't know about that one, and frankly the description on that page talks for itself. As far as I'm concerned that's even more offensive to all the "bomber boys" who never lived to see a memorial dedicated to them, but had a statue of the man who send him to be slaughtered.

Harris was a stubborn, vengeful individual whose tactics were completely wrong and caused the death of thousands of people on both sides for his distorted ideas; celebrating him with a statue is definitely out of place.. I wonder who had the idea to erect a statue on his name.

There is no reason why he should not have a statue. War is war and for centuries it hasn't been confined to battlefields or strict rules of engagement. Every individual of an enemy state is a combatant.

WW2 is the best example of "total war" and Harris did his job well. An unpleasant and tragic job, certainly, but in war you need the ruthless b*stards to give the orders.

The 7500 members of the Bomber Command Association (ex RAF aircrew) raised the money themselves to erect a statue to their chief.

..well according to your theory we should have a statue for Himmler, since he did his job quite well too :rolleyes:

it is a known fact that the area bombing idea was a bad idea, which cost not only innocent lives and RAF aircrews, but caused a lot of losses and great expenditures even after the war. It is also a fact that it's not because of area bombing that the war ended, it was just a tragic waste.

..I bet you're telling me next that Montgomery was a great general ;)

Better than you i'd wager.

apparently it was the "Bomber Harris Trust". I think it talks for itself, defending the indefensible..

I'm no general, and unlike you I keep national pride and military history well separated, but anyway I'm sure you heard of Market-Garden..

Also heard of El Alemain. National pride has nothing to do with it.

Not going to dispute market garden was a failure because in patently was, but not going to conveniently ignore what came before as you have subjectively done yet again with your wealth of knowledge on military history.

No general is perfect, Rommel whoever, all have successes and failures, given enough time in command.

The Bomber Harris trust, were as Arthur said, ex RAF airman from bomber command, that is fact, whatever your personal views or mine are on it.

well... El-Alamein was his victory, but an easy one, considering he was running against an exhausted and over-stretched Afrikakorps and Italian Army, both without supplies and significant air support by the end of the North African campaign, and fighting against an enemy who had bigger numbers in terms of troops and logistic support. Everything else after that was a total failure (Sicily/Anzio landings, D-Day/Caen, Market-Garden).

Perfection doesn't belong to human being, let alone Generals, but the balance between success and failure makes the difference between the legendary good and bad ones.. and remaining on the WW2 theme, I'm sure you heard about Patton.. that was a General.

I'm not so sure about the numbers of this Bomber Harris trust, there isn't much info on it. I don't doubt it had a part of ex RAF airmen supporting it, but this doesn't mean that they are right or that their scope is a legit one.

You still have Nazi vets that support their wartime creed, but this doesn't make them right, does it?

Anyway, going back on topic, the whole argument was that as much as I accept and think it's fair to celebrate the bravery of RAF Bomber Command aircrews, I don't think Harris deserves all this celebration, if anything for his controversial and questionable tactics.

Nor do i particularly, but you just assumed i did.

Best not to assume things you don't know, can make you look silly.

erm, I didn't assume anything, I just stated again what my opinion on the OT? :confused:

You're just trolling with the Himmler comment so I won't rise to the bait.

You're also trolling with the Montgomery mention but for the record I do think that Montgomery was a great general.

I am not convinced it is a "known fact" that area bombing was a bad idea. There are arguments for and against. You're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.

It is illuminating that the existing Harris memorial was paid for by those that he commanded. Maybe those that did the actual job had/have the right take on things.

Double post

why? If total war means justifying the killing of innocents"for a good cause",does it matter how?

You surely have a different approach (and probably understanding) to military history. What makes you think of Montgomery as a great general exactly? And what are the valid arguments for area bombing?
It is not still quite clear who are the members of this Trust, and I doubt he was too popular with the majority of the men he commanded..

You surely must understand the difference between attacking another soverign nation and the systematic extermination of anyone considered undesirable. Definite troll comment.

To use your own usual arguments, nothing you have said is evidence to support your opinions, just generalised comments. There is a theme of inviting arguments in order for them to be countered, but without any rational argument made to support your own views.

Back up your own arguments first and I'll respond, or let the argument die and the thread return to appreciation of a great programme. Your choice.

G'night.

well of course I do, your judgement is in hindsight though. If they won the war, who would be the hero and who would be the war criminal?

A controversial character like Harris, who caused the unnecessary death of thousands of civilians and RAF aircrew, all of this for a strategy that didn't actually win the war (it was actually argued in the Parliament that the disruption and damage caused by such bombings would have been an enormous problem to deal with once the war was over), is nothing to be celebrated with a statue, it's really in bad taste IMHO. Harris himself wouldn't probably have been too chuffed about it, there's a reason why he moved to South Africa until Churchill gave him the Baronet title, he knew that what he had done wasn't the best of strategies.. Now I'm not judging the man because I'm sure that being in such a position on such hard times must be the toughest role for a man, but in the meantime I think there's not a lot of room to celebrate his actions either.

well, you asked for it. As we all know, Monty won El-Alamein because of the favourable odds he had (logistics, troops, exhausted enemy), unfortunately, unlike his predecessors, Monty chose not to follow up on his victory by pushing the Germans out of Africa immediately, waiting until May of 1943 to finally accomplish what should have been done months earlier.

But Egypt wasn’t Monty’s real problem. That came later, first with the over-planned and under-executed landings in Sicily (Patton’s forces beat Monty’s British Army to Messina even though they had twice as far to go), followed by his dismal attempt to capture Caen, France on D-Day(The city was not taken until July 18, 1944, six weeks after the initial landing).

Then there was Operation Markey Garden in September, 1944, the attempt to take three key bridges in Holland that would make a breakout into the Ruhr Valley possible. Great idea; just poorly implemented, the result being the surrender of 6,000 British paratroopers at Arnhem and a temporary stalemate that was to last until that next spring.

Is that "factual" enough for you?

You underestimate the potential even a tired enemy has...remember the Battle of Britain.

I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...

Not strictly Monty's fault that German panzer units werent spotted nearby, it is perfectly forgiveable to have unanticipated results due to intel failiures, and that is the real reason the operation failed, bad implementation happened all the time throughout the war.

You clearly have a particular axe to grind against certain British leaders which seems to bias your contributions somewhat.

I have no particular love for that pompous orifice Monty myself but not everything he achieved can be discredited.

Are you really saying heroes and villains are defined purely by the outcome of a given conflict, not by the conduct during the conflict? Really? If Nazi Germany had won the war would they have really been heroes? I think if I was being kind I would say your statement is too broad and oversimplified.

Area bombing sure was/is controversial. But it's so easy for us to have negative views of the action taken now from the comfort of our 70 year post war position. I am no military strategist, but, if those in command at the time truly believed that area bombing was the only way to win the war, then who are we (I'm talking as an Englishman) to argue? If all the options were properly considered and it was felt that allied defeat and the invasion/occupation of western Europe, including the UK, was inevitable/very likely without area bombing, then I don't have a problem with the decisions taken. War is a horrible thing - there is no way around it. We just need to understand that.

PPP out

Bongo, I'm afraid you underestimate that soldiers that drink the water from their vehicles' radiators or that let themselves die in the desert are signs of an exhaustion beyond any offensive potential. It was a hard battle, but despite its mobility it became another war of friction, where who has the support and logistics on their back is more likely to win.

[quote]
I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...
[quote]
bad weather in Africa for 6 months.. really? Try and tell that to the guys in the Ardennes.. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but NO. First of all, he had the cheek to declare that Market-Garden was "90% successful" (the "10% failure" probably being the fact that they lost the chance to end the war by Xmas, 17k casualties among Allied troops and last but not leasts the thousands of civilians that died in Holland because of the ensuing famine the following winter..), second thing is that the competition with Patton had the best of him: Monty had this thing that when he needed to be cautious he was reckless, and when he could go he was too prudent.
No, I am just talking about controversial generals, the fact that they're both British is coincidental. I can mention you a lot of non British incompetent or controversial generals if you want me to: Adolf Hitler anyone? :rolleyes:
My opinion (which is shared by many, both now and back in the days) is that Montgomery was overrated, that's it. I'm not saying he didn't do what he had to do, but when left to organise important things his stubbornness got in the way and caused enormous damage.

erm.. is this a serious question? Do you think the Nazis went around thinking they were the bad guys? They were indoctrinated into a creed that was the only way for them, made of racial pride and will of revenge. Many dissented on Hitler's politics of course, but they either kept it for themselves or got in serious trouble. I'm not saying I don't think they were, but if you were a Nazi you would have ended up agreeing with the mass. The majority believed they were in the right, like any side to a war is, the "evil villains" are just James Bond movie stuff..

The "heroes of the Soviet Union" raping and pillaging on their way to Berlin, area bombing in Europe (done by both sides), atomic bombs, the war crimes committed by Tito in Jugoslavia.. the killing and raping done by Algerian troops whilst advancing in Italy..History is written by the winners, who wins is the good guy.

Think about it, Russia was our ally until 1945, then they went from being the good guys to our enemies, and it's not like their politics changed much until 1989..

The decision of area bombing was a much controversial one and that didn't get approved on the first spot anyway, because many in the war cabinet argued that it would have been the same as going down to the same level of the Nazis. When it was eventually approved the USAAF firmly detached itself from such policy, saying they would have carried out their daylight operations of pinpoint bombing to damage factories and other strategic objectives (applying a peculiar double standard in 1945 with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. )

The deliberate bombing of civilian targets was in line with what the Germans did during the Blitz, a form of retaliation disguised as an offensive strategy to win the war, in a time where everybody was tired of the war and propaganda struggled to give positive news that would show there was a definite and effective way to end the war quickly.

Definitely the worst chapter of the RAF history, and again it can't be blamed on the men that executed their orders, but only on their commander and his insistent (as much as wrong) idea that area bombing would have won the war, instead of just being a mass murder.

So how exactly is the fact that the axis were denied supplies and reinforcements and overwhelmed by a superior force testament to Montgomery's total incompetence?

I never said 6 months.....where did I say 6 months? just like in many other conflicts nature sometimes nature throws in a curveball that changes proceedings to a degree, I was just under the impression a window of bad weather bought Rommel some time and in the end there was no need to make a decisive push....the rest of the war was practically on the back foot for the Axis by then.

War is hell ain't it........
don't worry Stern...even I am a bit upset that we celebrate an oxygen thief like Monty, I would much prefer we had a more charismatic person in his place of history.

Hitler wasn't a general....just a corporal with delusions of grandeur, shame you make little effort to mention some of these 'other' generals, your concentration on the British ones is telling.

Many oppinions are always shared by many others....doesn't make them right or wrong, Montgomery being overrated is one I can share with you but not completely incompetent.

I don't think he was a total incompetent, he knew his stuff (which somehow makes him even worse), but El-Alamein was a bit unbalanced: it's like saying you're gonna play the world cup final against a formidable team who has no football boots and is one legged..

Well that's how long they sat on their ar$e for. He lived on the glory of El-Alamein and didn't complete his job in North Africa.

I understand your sentiment.

well he was a general indeed unfortunately, and I can mention to you other bad generals: Rommel, Alexander, Gamelin, Graziani, Percival, Fredendall.. we also have the ones who won, but at insane costs in terms of lives (i.e. Stalin, Zhukov..).. if you want details on them let me know :)

as I said before, he wan't a complete incompetent, he was a stubborn man with an awful sense of timing and an ego the size of the British empire..

No not really...it's just like a regular football match and one side lost, you seem to be emphasising the entire North Africa campaingn on the second half, the first half was a mirror of your description with the allies being completely outclassed, just because Rommel wasn't completely taken out doesn't mean enough wasn't done.

I'm not sure your prejudice against amputees is very nice, Bader had no legs (lost before the war) and he became an Ace.

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.

If I remember correctly, didnt Goering say that Britain could be defeated by bombing? As this was all theory at the time (both the US and Britain both thought that bombing would be the way that future wars would be fought) it hadnt been proved either way. It could also be argued that the Blitz had the opposite effect that the German High Command wanted. Churchill knew that hadnt worked but thought that the RAF could do better. Also I wonder what the people who now say that the bombing policy was totally wrong would have done to take the war to Germany? Daylight raids by both the RAF and the US showed the price to be far too high. Even in daylight with no fighter or AAA I doubt if targets could be hit so I think that they had no choice but to do what they did. One thing that struck me was when the aircrews said that they could see their target as a red glow on the horizon whist still flying over England. On another note I do think that from late 1944 large scale raids were not needed.

with regard to the 'winners write history'.....well duh!

the point is if you take into account why the Allies ever got involved in the War and what was ultimately being fought for then without doubt the Allies were the 'good guys' irrespective of any individuals questionable ethics, we can separate the Allies into 2 groups, the Russians had their own part of the war that just happened to align with the US and Brits, this just defaulted them into being an ally, the West had no influence over how they chose to conduct their war, lend lease was not necessarily an endorsement of any conduct either.

well I have a different understanding of the war in Northern Africa: the turning point was at the very beginning, when Vichy France surrendered, leaving a void and space for the Allied invasion to storm in. Other factors like limited or no supplies from Europe, the breaking of the Ultra code and inferior numbers in terms of troops and air support meant that it would only have been a matter of time, especially after the Germans started concentrating their efforts in Barbarossa.

ah come on man, it was just an example.. my grandpa was a partisan and a war amputee, so I doubt I'm prejudiced about the topic..

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.[/QUOTE]

yeah, let's just enjoy the moment ;)

yep, and despite all this, Harris still thought that area bombing in late 1944 was the solution..

I'm not saying that bombing was totally wrong. The total obliteration of Cologne, Dresden and other German cities on the other hand was unnecessary, since the invasion had already started and it was unstoppable.

Bring whatever factors into it you like...the outcome of the conflict was due to how it was managed by both sides.

lets make a hypothetical boxing match between matched opponents, one guy looses ballance....at that instant he is disadvantaged, the other guy isn't guaranteed a victory, he might also slip attempting the deciding blow.....you can see what I'm trying to say can't you.

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

Lol.

well, I do, but it's not entirely pertinent to the Northern Africa Campaign scenario.

Let me give you a better example and see what you think about it: Russian generals like Zhukov didn't win their battles because they were fine tacticians, they simply poured millions of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of vehicles onto the battlefield, crushing everything on their way. 20 million deads for the Great Patriotic War as they call it is a mind boggling number, but that's the price they were ready to pay for victory. Does this make them good generals?

Patton's and Monty's advance into mainland Europe was highly dependent on fuel availability, so much that they often strongly argued about who should get it first and even air bridges struggled to keep up with it.

Then more than ever, mobility of logistics was the key to victory. Germany was quite good at it, but as resources diminished, so did the fighting capability, so that's the scenario that developed in Africa, exacerbated by the strong weather factors.
LOL :mrgreen:

I'm sorry if it comes out as a "I'm right, you're all wrong", but it surprises me how things that I give for granted in history (especially considering that I've done most of my history studying at a British university, and had a lot of work done on area bombing for a mega-presentation) are often either ignored or not considered valid, and put against non factual arguments, but usually national pride (and there's nothing wrong in national pride, it just doesn't have to get in the way of an objective observation of history).

Try not to go down the Nationalist route please.....I assure you it has nothing to do with it.

it just so happens I am only 1/4 english at best, my origins are oddly enough mostly from places with a historical tendency to be at odds with the British......try Boer and throw in a bit of German French and Irish and a large dolop of Russian.

Oh and I wasn't born in the UK either and I lived in Italy before coming here.

I wasn't referring to you regarding the nationalist route, it's more of a generic feedback I get sometimes, and this applies to every country.

Whereabouts in Italy? :)

I lived in Bologna, initially in the city itself and then we moved into the hills in a place called Rastignano, I wen't to a catholic school in pianoro, I spoke Italian fluently (people thought i was a local kid) and have subsequently forgotten it completely, easy come easy go when youre a kid.

ouch, catholic school with nuns?! :-?

I know Rastignano! We flew to an ultralight airfield nearby with the Tiggies once and had a great meal there, which was spoilt by the flight back: bouncy August afternoon flight back, I really struggled to keep all that yummy food in as soon as I gave control to my co-pilot :mrgreen:

LOL....not quite that catholic, but Catholic enough for me to be excluded as a Satanic non-believer, the school dress was a black shirt with a white detachable collar, for some reason I wasn't allowed to wear the collar, I look at my old school photo and the look on my face is precious, a real sense of 'I wan't to kill you all damn you!', I was popular with the girlies though...hehe!

Ah.....I didn't quite realise you are a fellow Tiggie pilot, how many hours? I haven't flown a Tiggie for about 10 years now (270 hours), I fly a Stearman for my vintage fix now.

last time I flew one it was in 2005! I have some 350 under my belt (if memory serves!), then tried a Jungmann and fell in love with the thing!
The Tiggie was my first vintage plane experience, and a first love too, with all its quirkiness and the handling of a barn door :mrgreen: a good ol' gentle lady that can bite, but it's a pleasure to fly for a stroll above the countryside :)
I fly with a Stearman here too, another world, esp with the beefier engine, still not too sold about that cheeky torque though :mrgreen:

Yep Tiggers are wonderfull things....tops made out of rubber and bottoms made out of springs!.....particularily if you stuff up the landing and that well sprung udercarriage throws you back ito the air with zero speed....gotta love those innefective ailerons and rudder that stays locked in full deflection, have you tried a Canadian Tiggie yet? tailwheel is nice but those brakes are lethal.
haven't flown the jungman.....absolutely beautifull aircraft to look at, I must go and wink at Anna Walker and see if she will let me fly hers.
Stearman is just plain easy, I like the cheeky torque.

one day I'll tell you the story of when my engine quit on top of a tumble at 1100ft ("remember, if your engine quits, your only chance is to nose it down and let the propeller windmill and start up again, but you need to be at 1000ft ground to get enough airspeed!") :mrgreen:

brakes can be lethal, but bleeding them can be even worse!!

The Jungmann is like a glove, a pilot's dream! Responsive, no slack stick, super fast, compact.. you feel like you can land it on top of a helipad!

Hydraulic?....thats a new one, hydraulic brakes must be relatively nice, I'm used to the cable operated heel brakes....on or off and nothing between.

they actually had a proper hub kit, they were quite good, if anything to slow on landing, although they can be dangerous.. tailskid is generally good to stop, but taxiing with a tailwheel is way better.

Never tried the cable brakes, and frankly I'm in no hurry to try them either ;)

Sorry, can't help but ask. Why, in your opinion, was Rommel a bad general?

Hmm..... Also interested in Mr. Sternjaeger's opinion of Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/t...-meetinghouse/

Here's another one.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217

Rommell was an astute tactician, but not a good general: he didn't listen to more experienced colleagues (he deliberately and blatantly dismissed and ignored the suggestions of Italian generals during the North Africa campaign, who had a better understanding of logistics and artillery use), undermining his relationship with his Italian allies, who never thought much of him and didn't manage to coordinate their work efficiently in North Africa.

By the time he named Kesselrig as CinC of the Mediterranean based German Army it was too late, and never managed to efficiently coordinate the armed forces with the Allies.

So he lost that, he then screwed up big time in Northern France as you all know..

In addition to his stubbornness and arrogance, he deliberately didn't obey certain orders he received, and last but not least he tried to murder his leader.

So no, he wasn't a good general. An astute tactician as I said, a socialite, and a good man that understood that Nazism and Hitler were the real enemy, but not what you would normally define a good general.

A thing that we often forget nowadays is that the Americans had the same consideration of the Japanese that the Germans had of the Russians: Japanese code of conduct and fierceness didn't do themselves any favour, propaganda did the rest. Japanese were almost not considered human by most.

So whilst Germans might still have kept a sort of human side (all in all they had the same caucasian looks), Japanese were strongly mocked for their different looks. Only who fought against the Japanese learned the hard lesson that the Japanese were far from the clumsy, short sighted skinny wimps of the US propaganda.

Let's not forget that racism was still very strong in the '40s: white German POWs in the States were usually treated better than African American troops.

Thanks Stern, thats just given me a good chuckle before turning in.

I don't understand where the humorous part is? :confused:

Fine.

But was General Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal' or was it his leaders Rooseveldt/Trueman, who sanctioned these actions? - As it was Churchill as Head of the War Cabinet, in consultation with the Air Ministry who defined the policy that Harris (as a good 'General') carried out to the best of his abilities?
It was only post Dresden that Churchill began to distance himself politically from the Area Bombing policy, in fear of his post war political reputation. So who was the 'War Criminal'? Churchill? You might as well say then that all the leaders of the victorious nations were 'war criminals'.

As (let's be honest), the only 'precision bombing' carried out by the USAAF in Europe was conducted by the lead bomber in the Group, as everyone else toggled the tit when the leader's Norden bombsight was on target and he dropped his bombs. They dropped when he did. They didn't queue up in single file. So the American daylight campaign was almost as 'indiscriminate' as was the night bombing. Or is the distinction a question of stated intent rather than actual result?

Iron free fall bombs dropped from 30,000ft in a close formation of however many B-17s is 'precision bombing'? The difference was in intent/policy and not so much in results. And before you jump on the policy argument, what was, was. In a form of warfare never attempted on this scale. We now know different, but they didn't then. Applying the label 'War Criminal' to any of the Allied leaders in the War against Nazism is just puerile.

In the war against Japan, you may have a point, because by then, they'd realised that 'precision bombing' - wasn't, and those B-29 raids were designed to take out the Japanese cities (As was the raid on Coventry in November 1940 by the way), as were the A-bombs. 'Surrender, or face total annihilation.'
And you're correct, racial prejudice was almost an unwritten policy in that case. Not an accusation that can easily be aimed at the British, as our Monarchy are steeped in Germanic heredity, as are a great deal of our genetics. It's one of the reasons Hitler didn't want war with the British, because of his racially based idiocy.

So why do we keep hearing about 'Harris the War Criminal', when Leaders and Generals of all nations were guilty of the same indifference? I'm sick and tired of repeating myself on this Harris issue, but again, the man did nothing which was not sanctioned by Churchill and the War Cabinet. The Dresden raid itself is purported to have been carried out at the request of Stalin to Churchill, Churchill to Cabinet, Cabinet to Air Ministry, Air Ministry to Harris.. It's simply that no-one has the nerve to level that accusation against one of the greatest wartime leaders the world has seen. If not The Greatest. And if they did, they'd have to level the same accusations at all of the Allied Leaders. Rooseveldt, Trueman, Churchill and yep, 'Good Old Joe'. That's 'Uncle Joe' to our transatlantic cousins.

So Harris was, and remains, simply a scapegoat. Consequently a 'Bandwagon' has been generated, which all too many people are willing to jump on, and which drags the rest of Bomber Command down with it.

So, again, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal'? Did the B-29 aircrew receive a Campaign Medal?

You are omitting one pivotal point: the area bombing was Harris' idea, not Churchill's. Yes,he received pressure from Stalin, and realised that with the American intervention he was going to lose the grip on the ETO,so something needed to be done,but according to Churchill's memoirs,he was always reluctant about the de-housing, exactly because he saw the effects of the Blitz and because by the time they did it the war was virtually over,and they would have had to deal with the aftermath.

Harris is guilty for his lack of vision and what I think is his personal revenge and will to be remembered in history,but the toll to pay for his vanity was u reasonably high.

LeMay was way more ruthless than Harris,he was a proper cowboy,flying lead formation and imposing a strict discipline among his air force. He himself reckoned that if the Japanese caught him they would have tried and executed him for war crimes,so by his own admission he was well aware of what he was doing. He hated his enemies.

Once again,I don't wanna judge the men, they took tough decisions in difficult times, I'm only saying that celebrating them is really out of place.

So, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal', as you accuse Harris of being, or not?

'realised that with the American intervention he was going to lose the grip on the ETO' - what? Churchill campaigned for American involvement from the word go. Stupid comment.

'according to Churchill's memoirs,he was always reluctant about the de-housing' - I know, I have the books (you know, those I've never looked at), which he wrote after the war.

'Harris is guilty for what I think is his personal revenge' - Personal revenge for what exactly? He was quite happy farming in Africa.

'I'm only saying that celebrating them is really out of place.' - let me guess, because they helped win the war against Nazism?

'if the Japanese caught him they would have tried and executed him for war crimes' - he had good evidence and good cause. The Doolittle Raiders suffered that exact fate in '42. Didn't take a genius to work that out.

So, was Curtis LeMay a 'War Criminal', as you accuse Harris of being, or not?





.......

What ??????

Yes there is .... in Bavaria not far from Munich ...

http://www.ww2museums.com/article/15...-Luftwaffe.htm

http://www.oorlogsmusea.nl/upload/7067101117184205.JPG

Well, the "just followed orders" argument was trashed at Nuremberg. The ultimate question these days is...was that trial a standart setting process applayable to all, or mere winners justice?

Or let's say it this way. Before all this bomber combat honoring, this trial was seen as valid and trendsetting in Germany. Since this debate about honoring those bomber pilots came up and especially since the statue for Bomber Harris was errected, it is more and more seen as mere winners trial, where nationalism and hero worshipping trumps general moral values, completly in line with the soviet case back then.

I think he was, but I have no intention of carrying on a conversation with you if you don't change your offensive tone. I'm sure you can voice your opinion without being offensive to your interlocutor.

There was an interesting debate on how this idea is too scary or hard to compute for some people, the formula "we're the good guys, so we're allowed pretty much anything for the sake of our good cause" seemed to apply to a lot of unjustifiable stuff, with people failing to comprehend or remember than in their own eyes, the Nazis were the good guys and if they won it would have been their measure of good and bad, not ours.

Just a few things that reading brought to my mind ...

1.) The history is always written by the winners. If you don't believe that try to look up the history of the wars of Rome vs Carthago and how the Romans villainized their opponents to the point of razing their city and spreading salt after their ultimate victory. The historians don't know that much about Carthago and its interior workings - most of the sources are roman and therefor not really reliable. And the reason for all of that? An ordinary power struggle between two aspiring nations.

Now, with our modern perspective, the NS ideology was so far off the moral and humane scale that it's not funny today, either. They are the villains, from our perspective today, but if they'd have won the war (what a hair-raising thought, especially for me as a german) they would have been the shiny knights and their opponents would have been the villains (personal tip: read "Fatherland", a what-if novel about a german police investigator in the 1960s who has to solve a murder case in Berlin only to find the truth about the holocaust and dies to make sure the info gets out to the US).

2.) To criticize Rommel for not following orders to the letter is a bit too simple. He was totally in line with Prusso-German tradition in that sense and the prussian and german armies have bred that kind of officer (bold, aggressive, offensive-minded and hell-bent on independence) for centuries. Even a certain Hans-Joachim von Ziethen defied his king when Frederick ordered a charge and Ziethen declined because he felt the situation was not yet favorable:

"After the battle his Majesty may have my head but during battle he may allow me to make use of it."

In this Rommel was by no means alone. Guderian defied orders as early as 1940 when he received a stop order and declared the following advance of his Corps as "armed recon". Same goes for the withdrawal in front of Moscow in late 1941. Manstein objected to Hitler's orders more than once and finally got sacked because of it. History is full of such little (or larger) infractions but they're the result of the pecular way the prussian and then the german armies operated and trained their officers corps. (another personal tip: "The German Way of War" by Robert M. Citino)

As for his blatant disregard of the Italians there's a history and it is not limited to Rommel. Rommel's first meeting with the Italians was in 1918 and what he saw there gave him a thorough disregard of italian potential as warriors. It was an unfair impression, after all the country had never been a fan of participating in the war at all, but it stuck. Secondly, however, many german officers felt that the italians weren't persecuting the war with the vigor and resolution that was necessary. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the small circle of german liaison officers to Supermarina which in late 1940 wrote reports on italian capabilities that painted a depressing picture and argued - forcefully - for a german takeover of the war planning and execution. Rommel was the most visible of the officers who had contempt for the italians as warriors but he was by no means alone. To the italian's defense it must be said that they were saddled with a virtually non-existant armament industry, that the participation in the war was not popular again and that they did not have the germans' "warrior tradition" with all that it entailed.

Yes, they even made a movie out of Fatherland, which I recommend.

As per your observations, I agree that it was the general attitude, the average German officer arrogance is probably what cost him the war, and unfortunately it wasn't something based on the perception of the allies as somewhat less trained or worse equipped, it was just plain arrogance.

I met a Regia Aeronautica pilot some years ago, Giosue' Carillo, he was based in Sciacca, Sicily, on the same airfield where the JG26 operated from. They shared the same machines (he flew 109s received from Germany with Italian markings) and the same airfield, but they didn't share much else.

He had a bit of the German looks and also spoke German, so he befriended some of the Luftwaffe pilots there, but operatively communications were kept to a minimum and collaboration was very crude, if non existent.

He often met Luftwaffe 109s in the air, but they would normally waggle their wings and fly off, they never worked together in joint sorties or patrols.

First, I like Italy and Italians. Had some great times there and I also have great symphathy for a people that could not care less for the adventures of it's political leadership.

But if you argue in line of military professionalism, then this:

Arrogance is a very "relative" word and more often then not the result of hurt pride on the blaming side. I think the failure of the italian armies in the Balkans, Greece and N. Africa, requiering massive german support, and the Taranto raid did a lot to strenghen those mutual feelings. Simply stating that german "arrogance" cost them the war is true in the them dealing with the civil populations in Europe, espcially eastern Europe, but not so much in the case of the italian military, which disqualified itself on many occassions in general, despite some shining examples, units and individuals, in between.

Blame Mussonlini for bringing a country that was neither willing nor prepared, nor had the professionalism for a war of this scale into this conflict.

Stones and glass houses etc.

The end does not always justify the means, hence the controversy over Harris and the atomic bombs on Japan up to modern day issues in the Middle East.

It's too easy to look back from our current warfare morality/philosophy and to criticise those in the past. Take the trenches of WWI - at the time it was all new as the face of war completely changed within a year or two. In the early stages could they really have appreciated the horror?

I'm sorry, but I don't call other people's intelligent and mature opinions as idiotic, and in this specific thread the conversation has been extremely civilised, so no, it's not acceptable. Besides if we had any friction we need to move on, or shall we always use it as an excuse for being rude to each other?

Bingo. And since you mentioned the Middle East, as much as I definitely don't want Iran to get a nuclear arsenal for obvious reasons, it's crazy to think that some countries dictate over others' freedom of choice on such topics.

well it's not like the Allies didn't know about area bombing effects, since the Blitz happened 3 years before.. Truth is that Harris' de-housing, meant as DELIBERATE (not incidental, like it could happen with pinpoint) targeting of civilian targets was not necessary, was just a bloodshed of innocents on both sides.

The use of atomic bombs stands on another ground though: they had to use the two kinds of bombs because of all the R&D that went into it and because they needed to send a message to Russia. Still, they could have used a desert island and invited an international observation committee..

likewise, I love Germany and their attention to details :mrgreen:

I surely blame Mussolini for dragging an unwilling country into a war with an ill equipped and poorly managed Army and Air Force, but it's not like the Italians had the exclusive in the dismissive treatment from the Germans: Japanese, Rumanians, Hungarians etc.. none of the Axis powers involved collaborated to a standard near to the Allies' one, and collaboration proved to be a defining difference.

The Nazis really believed in their superiority, and the wake up call that maybe things weren't exactly as they thought arrived too late (fortunately!).

it's a shame they overlooked one very important detail....the blood thirsty megalomaniac they put in charge.

Italy or Germany?

Take your pick I guess, but I meant Germany.

While agreeing that there is some truth in the 'history is written by the winners' idea, I wonder if it is perhaps a little too simple and dismissive of other factors. To accept it you need to believe that there is no real moral sense in the world - that all morality is relative and a construction of particular cultures. You rightly say above that from our modern perspective Nazi Germany is viewed as beyond the pale morally, but it's the conclusion that if they had won we would now all view their actions as heroic and right that I want to question.

My own position (maybe unfashionable these days) is that there is a natural and deep moral sense in people that finds certain actions repugnant and indefensible. There is evidence for this in Nazi Germany - how many amongst the general German populace knew what was being done in Belsen or Auschwitz? When a regime chooses certain extreme actions it can typically only carry them through by either concealing them from the bulk of their own people, by using lies and disinformation, or by terrorising large segments of the population into complicity.

In my understanding one of the reasons for the construction of the 'industrial scale' extermination camps was the unforeseen psychological toll on the members of the SS death squads in Soviet Russia. Even amongst the most polically-committed members of the regime close-up exposure to slaughter on that scale had psychological consequences that proved difficult to sustain.

Many ordinary German citizens felt moral repugnance towards the Nazis at the time. Many chose active resistance and paid for it with their lives.

Surely the main idea in 'Fatherland' is exactly about this natural, moral 'reality' breaking through the massive repression that would be needed by the victorious regime to sustain their image as heroic, just, winners.

Given the above I would suggest that if the Nazis had won they would not have been able to sustain the 'fiction' of their justness or rightness because inevitably truth would prevail. Tyrannies ultimately collapse because in time their actions prove to be out of alignment with the deep needs of their own people.

I've some thoughts on the moral issues of the Allied bombing campaign versus the Nazi death camps too, but it will have to wait ;)

Then how do we explain people like Reinhard Heydrich? How can we square the essentially two persons in one body: the loving father and husband, the lover of classic music and gifted violinist vs the ice-cold planner and executor of the Holocaust? How do we explain the involvement of so many utterly respectable people in key positions of the Holocaust (like the engineers who designed and built the camps - who did not question their orders and kept working despite any kind of misgivings they may have had)? How do we explain the trainload of ordinary people working as informants for the secret service in pretty much any kind of totalitarian society (see NKVD, see Gestapo, see Stasi, etc etc)?

The way I see it there is an animalistic streak of ruthlessness in most of us which pertains to one's own advancement. It is weaker in some, stronger in others ... and it is the perfect tool for dictatorships not only to detect opposition within but also to push its own more drastic projects by offering economical and social benefits for those who do this dirty work. :-|

A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.

I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity?

Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth?

(the above was written before, but posted after CSThor's response )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Heydrich and specific individuals - there will always be particular people with combinations of sociopathic or psychopathic personality traits, and extreme political views that will allow them to balance and reconcile brutality towards chosen targets with civic duty and normal family activities. My argument above largely stands or falls on the reasons why the Nazis were able to get away with it. Ie how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?

I suspect some of the above questions could be applied to some Allied airmen who may have had deep misgivings about what they were doing to German cities. I was struck in the Bomber TV programme by the crewman who cracked up during a mission. 'Lack of moral fibre'. One expressed reservations but justified his participation with 'They started it'. That's not meant as a criticism of the individuals, more a comment on the near-impossibilty of maintaining any kind of normal judgement of behaviour in such an extreme situation as a war.

How much personal responsibilty do ordinary individuals carry when they are basically 'caught' in situations of deep powerlessness with few or no ways out?

CsThor, I'm sure you heard the name Alan Turing, one of the key men for the victory in WW2 and condemned in 1952 for homosexuality (because it was considered a crime) and accepting the chemical castration by the very same country that fought against the horrors of Nazism..

As you said, unfortunately it's all relative :?

I don't think we will ever know. I guess there was at least a sense of something dark happening, but in a state like nationalsocialist Germany one didn't ask too many questions.

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree that the treatment of Turing was abhorrent, it was also actually the absolute norm in the majority of countries worldwide for Homosexuality to be a criminal offence, based upon 'Christian Morality' in the West of course. A few exceptions like Iceland, Poland, and Italy (who have always to their credit been amenable to and non judgmental on the issue of 'Man-Love' lol, dating back to Antiquity.)

Turing was not forced to 'accept chemical castration' he voluntarily chose it rather than face a years imprisonment.....which is quite distinct to people being rounded up and executed/gassed/liquidated/murdered for being gay; there is no 'relativism' to speak of, if a comparison is being drawn this amounts to equivocation.

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times these days and even have people like Graham Norton on the telly! Good show. Can't stand Julian Clary though, nothing to do with him being gay (doesn't bother me one bit)....He's just not funny lol.

Regarding the question of the complicity or otherwise of the German population, its still the subject of historiographical inquiry. The consensus appears to be that the majority of civilians were aware of atrocities being committed, though not entirely aware of the Wansee conference and the official doctrine and policy of the 'Final Solution' and the precise details of the death camps. They were certainly aware of the forced removal of 'undesirables' to concentration camps and enforced/slave labour, and actively and extensively involved in its facilitation and prosecution.

An Oxford University Historian named Robert Gallatley conducted thorough and respected research into German media both prior to and during the war, drawing the conclusion that there was '"substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in the prosecution of the Holocaust, though he saw no evidence for majority awareness of the precise details.

This has not gone unchallenged however, and the debate continues.

I am of the opinion that what happened in Germany could have most certainly happened anywhere, given the same conflagration of circumstance and variables. To suggest (as some idiots do) that the German people were somehow inherently 'evil' or existed in some kind of personal moral vacuum is patently ludicrous. This is of course clearly evidenced by those who chose bravely to resist (albeit a minority). What it did unfortunately illustrate is what Humanity is capable of, and particularly the insidious and all pervasive effect of a Fascist states propaganda machine upon a populace.

The psychological phenomena of 'herding' has been posited as a possible explanation, and experiments like the 'Stanford prison experiment' *and the 'Milgram experiment' clearly illustrate how otherwise 'normal' people can behave when told to do unspeakable things by what they perceive to be an 'authority' figure. The cult of personality was nurtured and used to great effect by the Nazis, and was a powerful force indeed.

yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

As per Italy, although there was no law as such, people had to face mockery and social discrimination anyway, and it's still quite strong in Italy and Spain today, again mainly because of the darn catholic church..

..it's still abhorrent, and a form of persecution.
Yeah, I like Graham Norton too, not as good as Jonathan Ross though ;)

yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

Right. Because at that time, it was de facto not criminal, it was the letter of the law, almost worldwide. Yet almost universal worldwide state persecution of or sanction of Homosexuality by imprisonment is not the same as outright murder without trial and due process of law for the supposed 'crime' of being gay, or even suspicion of being so. There is no 'moral equivalence' whatsoever, and it seemed as though an attempt was being made to make one.

At the time, and of course wrongly, homosexuality was by a Judeo-Christian inspired, almost universally followed though erroneous 'Ethical standard' considered a crime. Britain was by no means alone in this (as you have noted, though I'm not sure why Britain was singled out), in fact it was as previously stated the worldwide norm. Murdering gay people or suspected gay people outright was absolutely not.

Point being, the world at large was 'guilty' of the persecution of gay people (not specifically Britain as you have acknowledged )....agreed. What the world was not guilty of was their systematic, wholesale execution, and attempted absolute eradication.

Quite different things, I'm sure you'll agree. Does this make me 'guilty' of 'moral relativism'? Absolutely, unashamedly and gladly. Most people are....and I stand by it. :) Thankfully, I'm not alone. Millions of people from many nations happened to agree with me and took up arms to defeat Nazism.

A good thing, I'm sure we can both agree on. 'Relatively speaking'. ;)

BTW Stern that amounts to partial agreement that some things are indeed relative, as you stated. I do believe however that the case of Turing and Nazi policy against gays are not comparable at all, in terms of being equally 'immoral'. That is a 'value judgment', not an 'absolute truth', which happily the vast majority of people share. There is no such thing as an 'absolute universal morality', I wish there was.

'how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?'

I had thought of those experiments and what they say about the pliability of the 'ordinary' person when I was writing the above. Establishing the 'right' conditions of deference to authority and unquestioning obedience was obviously a key facet of the Nazi regime.

Nonetheless there were those in the Milgram / Stanford experiments who refused to comply, just as there were those in Germany. For those individuals is it a deeper commitment to an inner moral sense that leads them to refuse to comply even in the face of threats and possible danger? And at any time in any country are the greater mass of the population always just 'following orders' from their perceived superiors? Just that in most cases the orders are comparatively mundane and benign.

(Personally I don't like Graham Norton. I used to like him for his role in Father Ted. I changed my mind when I realised that it wasn't great acting, but that he actually was as annoying as that in real life too!)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)