Bomber boys - bbc one

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

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

I don't understand where the humorous part is?

[ATAG_Dutch]

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

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?





.......

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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?





.......

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.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Stones and glass houses etc.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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..

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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'.

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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.

[csThor]

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.