RAF Bomber crews remembered. Better late than never.

[bongodriver]

It would be interesting to hear a hypothesis on what might have been 'without' an allied bombing campaign.

@Stern, be carefull with waving that 'national bias' flag again, so far there has been no need to mention it.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

It would be interesting to hear a hypothesis on what might have been 'without' an allied bombing campaign.

I think there would always have been an allied bombing campaign. Aerial bombing has proved a most potent weapon of war. Not a war-winning weapon however. For that there is still no substitute for boots on the ground. We have seen that repeated over and over since the end of WW2.

What kind of campaign though? I think that is why Blackdogs post is so interesting. Remember, the air chiefs really did have the ability to shorten the war - constant air attacks on Germany's oil production - but failed to understand this until the closing months of the campaign.

[bongodriver]

Attacks on Germany's oil production only became more feasible in the latter stages though didn't it?, the Allies had gained enough ground from which to launch these campaigns by then, whereas a general bombing campaign of the German mainland was always possible as it was within range from the UK, the way I see it, and which helps rationalise it for me (because even I agree it all seemed like a waste) is that despite say only 20% of the damage inflicted by the bombing was effective against genuine German production it was really also about tying the Germans up in a defensive role, had the Germans not been forced into self defense they would have much more resource to pour into their offensive campaigns, I didn't get to watch the Stephen Fry documentary...not all of it anyway, but I think recall a mention that much of the bombing campaign was 'requested' by the Russians? for pretty much those reasons.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Attacks on Germany's oil production only became more feasible in the latter stages though didn't it?, the Allies had gained enough ground from which to launch these campaigns by then, whereas a general bombing campaign of the German mainland was always possible as it was within range from the UK, the way I see it, and which helps rationalise it for me (because even I agree it all seemed like a waste) is that despite say only 20% of the damage inflicted by the bombing was effective against genuine German production it was really also about tying the Germans up in a defensive role, had the Germans not been forced into self defense they would have much more resource to pour into their offensive campaigns, I didn't get to watch the Stephen Fry documentary...not all of it anyway, but I think recall a mention that much of the bombing campaign was 'requested' by the Russians? for pretty much those reasons.

Attacks on Germanys oil production were feasible from 1st. September 1939. It is true that Germanys only source of natural crude oil lay in Rumania, out of the range of bombers for the early years of the war but the large refining and synthetic oil plants were within our range. What we really lacked was any real understanding of the German war economy. In later 1941 and early 1942 it became apparent to the war cabinet that our bomber offensive was failing. The decision was taken, with a good deal of secrecy, to abandon 'precision' attacks on individual industrial targets and go for the area campaign where the targets were the civilian workers of these industrial areas and any actual damage to the industries themselves were seen as a useful by product of the campaign. It must also be remembered that Bomber Harris was not a party to these decisions but was brought in to implement them and to his credit constantly urged the politicians to tell the British public the unabashed truth behind the strategic bombing campaign.

The Russians constantly demanded a second front in Western Europe. Whilst Stalin seems to have enjoyed the books of allied photo-recon of bomb damaged German cities that Churchill constantly sent him he was well aware that only armies on the ground could defeat Germany.
Churchill used the SBC as a way of delaying a second front in western Europe for as long as he possibly could in the face of Russian and American demands to get on with an amphibious invasion of France. Both Churchill and his Chief of the Imperial General Staff Alanbrooke had a very healthy respect for the fighting power and tenacity of the Wermacht born from their experiences of the first world war. They were much more content (luckily for us) to let the Germans and Russians bleed themselves dry on the eastern front before committing our scant resources of men and material to an all out assualt on the European mainland once more.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

It would be interesting to hear a hypothesis on what might have been 'without' an allied bombing campaign.

@Stern, be carefull with waving that 'national bias' flag again, so far there has been no need to mention it.

I was not referring to anyone in particular here, but it happened in the past.

Anyway, the Allied bombing campaign was made of two specific aspects: the pinpoint (more or less accurately) attack of strategic targets from the 8th Air Force and the systematic carpet bombing (AKA "de-housing") done by the RAF.

It's interesting how the Americans were reluctant to take part to it in the ETO but had no problem whatsoever in doing it over Japan..

It has been argued and demonstrated that the de-housing was a counterproductive technique (like the dambusters raids), and it was also argued in 1945 in the British Cabinet that after the war was over, the Allied would have been left with a pile of rubble to fix, which would have proved itself being costly and very difficult.

It's tough to justify all of that bloodshed mainly for retaliation and propaganda, not to mention trying to keep Stalin happy, but unfortunately that's what happened.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Anyway, the Allied bombing campaign was made of two specific aspects: the pinpoint (more or less accurately) attack of strategic targets from the 8th Air Force and the systematic carpet bombing (AKA "de-housing") done by the RAF.

It's interesting how the Americans were reluctant to take part to it in the ETO but had no problem whatsoever in doing it over Japan..

Hmmm...not quite true but the perceived truth. An important difference, no?
Again, what we do know now is that by early 1945 the British night bomber offensive had reached a pitch of precision where our raids were actually
more accurate than the daylight campaign of the eighth airforce where overcast conditions meant that much of their bomb aiming was done by H2S through cloud with the same erratic results the RAF was getting at night in '41/42. The American command fully understood this too but to admit that would mean they could no longer state that "the strategic bomber was not being thrown at the (German) man in the street."

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Hmmm...not quite true but the perceived truth. An important difference, no?
Again, what we do know now is that by early 1945 the British night bomber offensive had reached a pitch of precision where our raids were actually
more accurate than the daylight campaign of the eighth airforce where overcast conditions meant that much of their bomb aiming was done by H2S through cloud with the same erratic results the RAF was getting at night in '41/42. The American command fully understood this too but to admit that would mean they could no longer state that "the strategic bomber was not being thrown at the (German) man in the street."

I think the main point Stern was trying to emphasise is the British campaign was immoral and murderous, the RAF wasn't going after strategic targets but more after women and children and babies and family pets.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I think the main point Stern was trying to emphasise is the British campaign was immoral and murderous, the RAF wasn't going after strategic targets but more after women and children and babies and family pets.

Yep, it's the deliberate decision to attack civilian targets,not hitting them as collateral damage from pinpoint bombing that makes quite the difference.. but again it was done by the Americans as well. I find it somehow grotesque and really difficult to justify, condemning the Nazis for war crimes against civilians and then doing exactly the same thing..

And as usual the eloquence of Bewolf is spotless: it should be looked as a memorial about the casualties of that foolish campaign,not a "feel good" big monument.

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

... I find it somehow grotesque and really difficult to justify, condemning the Nazis for war crimes against civilians and then doing exactly the same thing...

Please don't ever compare what the Nazis did with the efforts of the allies in WWII. Or have I misunderstood your point?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan

Please don't ever compare what the Nazis did with the efforts of the allies in WWII. Or have I misunderstood your point?

No you haven't missed his point I'm affraid, Stern makes it no secret he thinks history is a lie written by the Allies, and very much equates the collateral killing of civillians in the allied bombing campaingns to the deliberate mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.

it's his oppinion and I'm done getting into big fights about it, beyond his naive beliefs he's not a bad chap.