Arthur 'bomber' Harris, War hero or criminal

jonniebgood1

Harris is always a controversial figure in WWII history and perhaps a reflection of the wider ranging theory that history is written by the victor. If Germany had won WWII surely he would have been held responsible for many killings in a German equivalent of the Nuremburg trials. My own view is that he did what he felt he had to do to bring about a victory for his side of the war. The counterpoint to this may be that the same could be said about many convicted or charged war criminals in recent times.

What are peoples views on Harris or indeed on the labelling of war criminals such as Karadzic in more recent times.

As a further aside are war crimes simply an invention of western sensibilities from the 20th century?

Judgement Day

Harris was a war hero in my opinion and did what he had to do to break the Germans. I doubt he would have had a trial if the Germans had won - they preferred torture, meat hooks and less public spectacles than Nuremberg type trials . Then again, I wouldn't have left two bricks on top of each other in Germany after WWII so my opinion is coloured to say the least.

Merch

Judgement Day wrote: »

Harris was a war hero in my opinion and did what he had to do to break the Germans. I doubt he would have had a trial if the Germans had won - they preferred torture, meat hooks and less public spectacles than Nuremberg type trials . Then again, I wouldn't have left two bricks on top of each other in Germany after WWII so my opinion is coloured to say the least.

From what i read, (I dont have the source) that even members of the British forces were concverned that if ever the scale of the bombing of german citizens got out, they (I believe it was churchill) were seriously concerned it would have appalled the British public who believed they were above that.

All the same,

I think you are referring to the Nazi's
The Germans had a tradition of military honour.

How is your opinion coloured? did you serve in the war? unlikely, so your family did?
I know people that did and while they had a dislike the Germans, I never heard them express an opinion that they wanted civilians that had no sway over what happened in Germany, bombed literally into pools in the ground.

Something they did admit, was they never knew the extent of British severity in dealing with the locals in the countries they themselves colonised.

I have seen on a history channel production that there were anti war demonstrations at the start of war in Berlin, the thing is, once a war gets going its difficult to stop and more difficult for those in any country to oppose without easily being labelled a traitor or coward.

Manach

I read pieces both critical and supportive of Harris, hailing him villain and hero. From accounts that I read of the RAF Bomber command during that phase of the war, they suffered heavy causulties in the course of the campaign but inflicted major damage on the ability of Germany to wage war.
Harris' tactics in the current era of Human rights and "Smart" weapons would likely be deemed illegal now. However then, the maxim of "In war, law is silence" prevailed and he accomplished his mission, to gut the German war machine.

Merch

Manach wrote: »

I read pieces both critical and supportive of Harris, hailing him villain and hero. From accounts that I read of the RAF Bomber command during that phase of the war, they suffered heavy causulties in the course of the campaign but inflicted major damage on the ability of Germany to wage war.
Harris' tactics in the current era of Human rights and "Smart" weapons would likely be deemed illegal now. However then, the maxim of "In war, law is silence" prevailed and he accomplished his mission, to gut the German war machine.

But even then there were questions as to the necessity to bomb German cities at a late stage in the war

It was also stated by former German officers of what was the luftwaffe, after the war, that when bombers shifted their attacks from cities to fuel plants and rail depots supplying coal to war industry that the effects were felt by the luftwaffe and this affected the ability of Germany to wage war.

the same effect was encountered in the opposite way when the Germans had shifted their attacks from RAF bases to cities in response to British bombing of cities earlier in the war, some of this from both sides was likely attributed or started by accidental bombing due the inability of bombers to find targets (day or night) and the misidentification of targets that escalated into retaliation.

saabsaab

In the early part of the war Britain had few ways of inflicting damage on Germany directly. So the only way they believed was to bomb cities and accurate bombing was not well very well developed. The idea was to damage war production (this included workers and their families) and their will to fight. In fact the damage to the British airforces was far greater than the damage inflicted on German war production and stiffened the German will to fight on. Although even a little damage and resources diverted from the war in Russia must have helped the Soviets it has been said that far more damage to the German war effort would have resulted from using Mosquito fast bombers for pinpoint industrial attacks only and abandoning the carpet bombing approach. The American airforces concentrated more on industrial targets. Bomber Harris must have been aware of these arguments at a later stage in the war and was wrong both morally and strategically.

Manach

For targeting civilians center as the war was coming to close, that certainly is a morally grey area.
On the one hand, there were the needless causative and devastation - reading an account in "Germany 1945" by Bessell describe block after block of flattened ruins in German cities.
On the other, there was on the fear by the Allies of a rabid nazi citizenry (incorrectly as it turned out)who would wage a generation long guerrilla war against the allied forces. Propaganda reels of special units call the "Werewolves"(?) were designed to encourage this. By imposing the total war of carpet bombing, the Allies might have been seeking to forestall this in their own planing.

pedroeibar1

For a long time I thought the sobriquet 'Butcher' Harris derived from the city raids until my uncle a WWII bomber pilot told me it came from the RAF crew themselves because of his continuous ordering of raids that led to very high RAF casualties. One of the few things he told me.

Merch

I think it was unecessary and gruesome,
especially fire bombing of cities
I read a book about it once,
talk of sweeping away pools of the dead that hadn't been burned, liquified and rivers of blood.
Sickening

“The fire storm transformed thousands of individual blazes into a sea of flames, ripping off the roofs, tossing trees, cars and lorries into the air, and simultaneously sucking the oxygen out of the air-raid shelters.

”Most of those who remained below ground were to die painlessly, their bodies first brilliantly tinted bright orange and blue, and then, as the heat grew intense, either totally incinerated or melted into a thick liquid sometimes three or four feet deep.”

–R.H.S. Crossman, “Apocalypse at Dresden,” Esquire, November 1963

Merch

Judgement Day wrote: »

Harris was a war hero in my opinion and did what he had to do to break the Germans. I doubt he would have had a trial if the Germans had won - they preferred torture, meat hooks and less public spectacles than Nuremberg type trials . Then again, I wouldn't have left two bricks on top of each other in Germany after WWII so my opinion is coloured to say the least.

You should have a read of this.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/war/dresden1.html

I think its likely to suggest that its fairly accurate

More so it doesnt only suggest Harris could be labelled a war criminal, but churchill also.

WW2 was not a good war, If the nazis were morally repugnant, then what was capable of defeating that?

That suggests they wanted to impress Stalin,
I think when they mean impress, they mean concern him of the damage they are capable of militarily and morally inflicting to meet their requirements.
Most people involved in this likely weren't aware of atomic weapons, the need to prove to the Soviets what they were capable of so near to the soon to be Soviet controlled territory is as much a warning to them as it was anything to do with the Germans.

ejmaztec

Merch wrote: »

You should have a read of this.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/war/dresden1.html

I think its likely to suggest that its fairly accurate

More so it doesnt only suggest Harris could be labelled a war criminal, but churchill also.

WW2 was not a good war, If the nazis were morally repugnant, then what was capable of defeating that?

That suggests they wanted to impress Stalin,
I think when they mean impress, they mean concern him of the damage they are capable of militarily and morally inflicting to meet their requirements.
Most people involved in this likely weren't aware of atomic weapons, the need to prove to the Soviets what they were capable of so near to the soon to be Soviet controlled territory is as much a warning to them as it was anything to do with the Germans.

My understanding is that the Soviets pressured them into the bombing of Dresden, so that the Nazis would transfer resources and as a consequence allow the Soviets to get to Berlin quicker.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68915647&postcount=16

Fratton Fred

does he have to be either? he had a job to do and he did it, with maybe a bit too much enthusiasm.

Out of curiosity, how many German Air Chiefs were tried for bombing civilians at the Nurembourg trials?

Manach

AFAIK - was not the head of the Luftwaffe Air-marshal Goring on trial on Nuremberg?

Fratton Fred

Manach wrote: »

AFAIK - was not the head of the Luftwaffe Air-marshal Goring on trial on Nuremberg?

Well, in fairness he was a senior ranking Nazi, who was complicit in the murder of a few million jews and other "Undesirables".

Then there was the murder of captured airmen, political opponents etc.

ejmaztec

Manach wrote: »

AFAIK - was not the head of the Luftwaffe Air-marshal Goring on trial on Nuremberg?

I think he was there for being an intrinsic part of the inner circle, and not specifically for bombing civilians.

Jawgap

Neither - the real heroes were the pilots and aircrew who flew the missions he conceived and organised.

He was a competent organiser and a forceful commander at a time when competence and forcefulness were required.

Area bombing was barbaric but if you were an infantry man faced with crossing the Rhine and invading Germany I'm sure you'd want the full might of your air force to fall on the enemy before you got there?

Gee Bag

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Harris is always a controversial figure in WWII history and perhaps a reflection of the wider ranging theory that history is written by the victor. If Germany had won WWII surely he would have been held responsible for many killings in a German equivalent of the Nuremburg trials. My own view is that he did what he felt he had to do to bring about a victory for his side of the war. The counterpoint to this may be that the same could be said about many convicted or charged war criminals in recent times.

What are peoples views on Harris or indeed on the labelling of war criminals such as Karadzic in more recent times.

As a further aside are war crimes simply an invention of western sensibilities from the 20th century?

We have the benefit of hindsight when discussing the bombing of German cities. These bombing raids have to be viewed in the context of their times rather than as some kind of isolated event.

Bomber command were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the levelling of entire cities. For me Harris has always been a grey man, he was very much a product of his times and needs to be seen as such, for that reason I would just about give him a pass. However, If I was British I certainly wouldn't be holding him up as a hero. For future generations I think his name will become synomous with butchery.

With regard to the question whether war crimes are a western invention or not I would have to say absolutley not. Wars happen, they always have and they always will. As much as possible they should be fought between armed groups be they armies, militias, paramilitaries etc. What should not be acceptable is the deliberate targeting of civilians or recklessness towards civilian casualties.

You don't have to be a western pinko liberal to think that ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or the Rwandan Genocide were abhorent.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how many German Air Chiefs were tried for bombing civilians at the Nurembourg trials?

To my knowledge there was no one specifically charged with that offence at any of the major trials.

It's probably worth remembering that the Luftwaffe (or the Japanese) never developed any real heavy bomber capacity, therefore their air raids never came close to having the destructive power of allied raids on Germany or Japan. With that in mind, it would have been a dumb move by the allies to charge axis airforces with killing civilians in bombing raids, an offence they themselves would be clearly guilty of many times over.

jonniebgood1

Gee Bag wrote: »

With regard to the question whether war crimes are a western invention or not I would have to say absolutley not. Wars happen, they always have and they always will. As much as possible they should be fought between armed groups be they armies, militias, paramilitaries etc. What should not be acceptable is the deliberate targeting of civilians or recklessness towards civilian casualties.

You don't have to be a western pinko liberal to think that ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or the Rwandan Genocide were abhorent.

The reason I ask the question is my memory of people charged with these crimes. For example were and allied forces brought before international courts after WWII. Were any American officers brought before war crime tribunals after some of the Vietnam massacres or indeed some of the more recent conflicts that saw abuses of prisoners that would not have been out of place in WWII- these actions are on a smaller scale obviously but surely are comparable in some manner with Serbian crimes that are recently highlighted.

Judgement Day

Gee Bag wrote: »

We have the benefit of hindsight when discussing the bombing of German cities. These bombing raids have to be viewed in the context of their times rather than as some kind of isolated event.

Bomber command were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the levelling of entire cities. For me Harris has always been a grey man, he was very much a product of his times and needs to be seen as such, for that reason I would just about give him a pass. However, If I was British I certainly wouldn't be holding him up as a hero. For future generations I think his name will become synomous with butchery.

With regard to the question whether war crimes are a western invention or not I would have to say absolutley not. Wars happen, they always have and they always will. As much as possible they should be fought between armed groups be they armies, militias, paramilitaries etc. What should not be acceptable is the deliberate targeting of civilians or recklessness towards civilian casualties.

You don't have to be a western pinko liberal to think that ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or the Rwandan Genocide were abhorent.



To my knowledge there was no one specifically charged with that offence at any of the major trials.

It's probably worth remembering that the Luftwaffe (or the Japanese) never developed any real heavy bomber capacity, therefore their air raids never came close to having the destructive power of allied raids on Germany or Japan. With that in mind, it would have been a dumb move by the allies to charge axis airforces with killing civilians in bombing raids, an offence they themselves would be clearly guilty of many times over.

Despite what you say, the Luftwaffe were responsible for a serious loss of life during the Blitz http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/30/a6655430.shtml and reaped the whirlwind for their own people. As in all recent wars it is largely the innocent that suffer.

jonniebgood1

Judgement Day wrote: »

Despite what you say, the Luftwaffe were responsible for a serious loss of life during the Blitz http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/30/a6655430.shtml and reaped the whirlwind for their own people. As in all recent wars it is largely the innocent that suffer.

Firstly I would agree that all innocents who suffered were unfortunate. This was true of Coventry as of Hamburg.

However from my studies of this I think the numbers involved cannot be ignored and AFAIK these numbers show a far greater casualty list of Germans killed by the RAF than Britons killed by the Luftwaffe.

If anyone has any table of comparison of civilian casualties I would like to see this.

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Firstly I would agree that all innocents who suffered were unfortunate. This was true of Coventry as of Hamburg.

However from my studies of this I think the numbers involved cannot be ignored and AFAIK these numbers show a far greater casualty list of Germans killed by the RAF than Britons killed by the Luftwaffe.

If anyone has any table of comparison of civilian casualties I would like to see this.

What about the mainland European civilians who were indiscriminately bombed, strafed, and subjected to ground assaults by the Nazis? The Allies were after all also fighting on their behalf, and not simply to avenge the deaths of civilians in the UK.

Gee Bag

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reason I ask the question is my memory of people charged with these crimes. For example were and allied forces brought before international courts after WWII. Were any American officers brought before war crime tribunals after some of the Vietnam massacres or indeed some of the more recent conflicts that saw abuses of prisoners that would not have been out of place in WWII- these actions are on a smaller scale obviously but surely are comparable in some manner with Serbian crimes that are recently highlighted.

That's fair enough, I take your point 100%.

I would still suggest that its worthwhile to have international agreement on what constitutes a war crime with the possibility of a trial for same. While it will only be applied to relativley weak nations the existence of some kind of accepted standard may at minuimum give nations or individuals who may be contemplating such crimes cause to consider their actions. It's better than nothing.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Despite what you say, the Luftwaffe were responsible for a serious loss of life during the Blitz http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/30/a6655430.shtml and reaped the whirlwind for their own people. As in all recent wars it is largely the innocent that suffer.

The point I was trying to make was that if the allies were going to make the axis powers stand trial for indiscriminate bombing from the air then they would be on shaky ground themselves after the bombing of Germany and the conventional and nuclear bombing of Japan.

Watch Ryder

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Harris is always a controversial figure in WWII history and perhaps a reflection of the wider ranging theory that history is written by the victor. If Germany had won WWII surely he would have been held responsible for many killings in a German equivalent of the Nuremburg trials. My own view is that he did what he felt he had to do to bring about a victory for his side of the war. The counterpoint to this may be that the same could be said about many convicted or charged war criminals in recent times.

What are peoples views on Harris or indeed on the labelling of war criminals such as Karadzic in more recent times.

As a further aside are war crimes simply an invention of western sensibilities from the 20th century?

History is written by the winners.
Harris is a mass murderer by proxy.
Dresden especially being one example of his 'work'

foxcoverteddy

How long has the war been over, getting on for seventy years, people died needlessly due to the nazi regime, condemnation of what took place is fine now, did you suffer from the bombing of London and other cities?
I doubt it, so why try and castigate someone who was doing a job, he no doubt hated doing it, unlike some of the modern dictators who appear to revel in mass murder.
On an end note, the allies did not have oven and mass burial plots, get real.

Coles

The bombing of Dresden was meticulously planned to create a firestorm to incinerate the city the it's civilians. War crime.

foxcoverteddy

Dear Coles, get a life, what do you think of the bombing of Swansea, Coventry, Plymouth and the use of v1 and v2 rockets, the man was brilliant, no doubt you are against the US for hiroshima and nagasaski, did your dad die on the burma railway? mine did, so take a look in the mirror you are only here because brazve men fought for your freedom.
You are an insult to a generation gone by.

Luca Brasi

Coles wrote: »

The bombing of Dresden was meticulously planned to create a firestorm to incinerate the city the it's civilians. War crime.

As was the bombing of Birmingham and Omagh

Coles

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

Dear Coles, get a life, what do you think of the bombing of Swansea, Coventry, Plymouth and the use of v1 and v2 rockets, the man was brilliant, no doubt you are against the US for hiroshima and nagasaski, did your dad die on the burma railway? mine did, so take a look in the mirror you are only here because brazve men fought for your freedom.
You are an insult to a generation gone by.

Harris had nothing to do with the bombing of Swansea, Coventry, Plymouth, Hiroshima or Nagasaki so why would you blame him for that. Very odd, but it doesn't reduce his responsibility for what happened at Dresden.

Coles

Luca Brasi wrote: »

As was the bombing of Birmingham and Omagh

Again, if you have evidence that Harris bombed Birmingham and Omagh then you should present it. I'm fairly sure you don't have such evidence but that doesn't reduce his responsibility for what happened at Dresden.

Coles

And another thing. Have a look at the thread title and keep your pointless whataboutery out of the thread. Omagh? wtf.

ejmaztec

Coles wrote: »

Harris had nothing to do with the bombing of Swansea, Coventry, Plymouth, Hiroshima or Nagasaki so why would you blame him for that. Very odd, but it doesn't reduce his responsibility for what happened at Dresden.

Why would even think that he was blaming Harris, when it's plainly obvious that he wasn't?

Judgement Day

Coles wrote: »

And another thing. Have a look at the thread title and keep your pointless whataboutery out of the thread. Omagh? wtf.

And it's not the Humour Forum either. :rolleyes:

Coles

Judgement Day wrote: »

And it's not the Humour Forum either. :rolleyes:

That's right.

Coles

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

...did your dad die on the burma railway? mine did...

That's very sad. It deserves a thread of it's own, mainly because it has very little to do with this topic. Unless you feel that tens of thousands of dead German civilians makes up for your loss?

ejmaztec

Coles wrote: »

That's very sad. It deserves a thread of it's own, mainly because it has very little to do with this topic. Unless you feel that tens of thousands of dead German civilians makes up for your loss?

Methinks that your opinion of Harris is solely linked to the fact that he was British.

Coles

ejmaztec wrote: »

Methinks that your opinion of Harris is solely linked to the fact that he was British.

How so?

ejmaztec

Coles wrote: »

How so?

It sticks out like a sore thumb.

Coles

ejmaztec wrote: »

It sticks out like a sore thumb.

Oh? Explain.

Coles

Yeah, that's what I thought.:rolleyes:


Here's the quote that seems to have triggered reams of attacks on me. Very odd that there would be such a reaction when the facts are completely uncontested...

The bombing of Dresden was meticulously planned to create a firestorm to incinerate the city the it's civilians. War Crime.

ejmaztec

Coles wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought.:rolleyes:


Here's the quote that seems to have triggered reams of attacks on me. Very odd that there would be such a reaction when the facts are completely uncontested...

What did you think exactly?

Coles

ejmaztec wrote: »

What did you think exactly?

I thought that you wouldn't be able to defend your childish accusation. And I was right. Now how about we stop that kind of stuff and just stick to the topic, eh?

Would the firebombing of a city of civilians be considered a war crime today? Yes/No.

Lemming

Answering the thread OP question neither here nor there, I'll just add this link - on the mention of the blitz - to show the scale of bombing that the greater London area alone endured during the blitz. It's a recently released interactive map showing locations of bombs dropped

www.bombsight.org

ejmaztec

Coles wrote: »

I thought that you wouldn't be able to defend your childish accusation. And I was right. Now how about we stop that kind of stuff and just stick to the topic, eh?

I don't need to defend the obvious.

Coles

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't need to defend the obvious.

Oh? Explain.:rolleyes:

Gee Bag

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

How long has the war been over, getting on for seventy years, people died needlessly due to the nazi regime, condemnation of what took place is fine now, did you suffer from the bombing of London and other cities?

This is a history discussion forum, you don't have to have been a particapant in the actual events to discuss history or have an opinion.

The Nazi's didn't have a monopoly on killing civilians or prisoners, the Russians massacred tens of thousands of Poles at Katyn. Britian's scorched earth policy and failure to provide food aid in NE India resulted in the Bengal famine of 1943 that left millions dead.

If there are standards for what constitutes accepatable behaviour in war then these standards apply to both sides

I doubt it, so why try and castigate someone who was doing a job, he no doubt hated doing it, unlike some of the modern dictators who appear to revel in mass murder.

You clearly know nothing about the man. Harris revelled in his role as head of Bomber Command. During the war his methods were being questioned. The USAAF initially attacked targets in daytime to try and avoid civilian casualties and to allow for precision bombing. Juxtapose that policy with this quote from Harris "The destruction of factories, which was nevertheless on an enormous scale, could be regarded as a bonus. The aiming-points were usually right in the centre of the town."

Prior to D-day he refused to retask his bombers to attack Lufwaffe and air plane production facilities, despite being commanded to do so. Even after d-day he was infuriated with his bombers being used to attack troop concentrations, rail lines, etc. rather than being allowed to continue the campaign against Germany's cities.

Here is another Harris quote "The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."

The bombing of Dresden happened in Feb 1945, when the writing was on the wall for Germany. Dresden was a centre for refugees with little industry, as a consequence it had little in the way of air defence. At the time tjhe bombing of Dresden was reported by the western media as 'terror bombing'. In private even Churchill questioned whether the bombing campaign had gone too far.

On an end note, the allies did not have oven and mass burial plots, get real.

The Russians had very many mass graves before, during and after the war. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were burnt alive in allied air raids. Having crematoria is not the only criteria for what constiutes a war crime.

foxcoverteddy

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing, quoting from unknown sources and condemming someone who cannot now defend the actions of the military.
You actually make me feel sick that people died for you.

Gee Bag

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing,

Yes it is, it includes the freedom to ask questions

quoting from unknown sources

Unknown to you. Both are direct quotations from Arthur Harris. The first is from Harris own book Bomber Offensive (1947), the second is from Rhetoric and Reality in Aerial Warfare by Tami Beddle.

Here's another quote for you, this one is from Winston Churchill'''

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.,.."

and condemming someone who cannot now defend the actions of the military.

This statement doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to infer that no one should have an opinion on Harris (or for that matter any other deceased historical figure) because they are not alive to defend themselves?

You actually make me feel sick that people died for you

That comment is just ridiculous. That kind of shrill bleating is worthy of the Daily Mail.

Coles

A very good (and balanced) article on the bombing of Dresden. Worth reading.

foxcoverteddy

Of course people are free to express an opinion, that is the luxury you have and others, been afforded by the suffering of so many. Equally I have the right to express my opinion of your attitude to a man who was a hero.
Yes there was a sadness of the death's of the civilian population of Germany, however to a degree they allowed the bully boy's to take over and many worshipped Hitler, knowing full well that he wanted world domination.
You m ight criticise the Russians for their treatment of the Germans, are you going to do the same for the German treatment of the Russians, how are you looking at Hitler's reslove do wipe out the jewish population, the romany's, gays and anyone else who did not fit in to his perceived ideal race.
No doubt had the war been won by the axis would have witnessed the same retribution of our leaders.
My reference to Japan was to suggest that you had the same views on the dropping of the atom bomb as the bombing of Dresden and other German cities.
There are always innocent casualties in any conflict, however the justification of the allies was the stopping of a madman from destroying society as we know it, it may be that both Arthur and Winston had second thoughts, being christians.
It would matter not where you bombed civilians would be killed, it also was irrelevent whether we had bigger bombers than the German's, it was perhaps fortunate for us, you failed to mention the disasterous bombing of the London Docks, the sky was black with german bomber's.
Hitler had no idea where the V1 and V2 rockets would land, I guess in your view that wasn't important.
I presume you did not live in the UK at the time, the bomb's that dropped on Air Raid shelters, and places of entertainment, yes they killed people, surprised?
You seem to have disregarded Germany's submarine warfare, if I remember rightly one submarine managed to drown something like 15000 yes 15000 people in one day, that obviously is outside your thoughts.
One might be correct in saying the bombing of Dresden was perhaps not the finest hour, or the cruelty imposed by the russians.
War solves nothing, we should have learnt that from the first world war and the carnage on the somme.
We, well our leaders were probably aware Germany was on its last legs, so was Britain at one stage, had Hitler come up with an Atom bomb everything would have changed in a flash.
Did the generals deflect to the allies?
Arthur was a hero.
Wishing you and yours a peaceful Christmas and at least the Gestapo won't appear, we hope not.

Coles

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

...
Yes there was a sadness of the death's of the civilian population of Germany, however to a degree they allowed the bully boy's to take over and many worshipped Hitler, knowing full well that he wanted world domination.
...
Arthur was a hero.
...

So the German civilians deserved to die? Majority women, children and the elderly? Ok. Happy Christmas.

With regards the rest of your contribution, I don't think anyone is going to argue against the rest of the war crimes committed by the Germans, Japanese, Russians and Americans. All the whataboutery is pointless. This thread is about Arthur Harris.

foxcoverteddy

Your comments are incredible, beyond belief, no one deserved to die, German, German Jews, British, and Allied troops, children on liners torpedo'd by germans, refugees on liners torpedo'd by germans, the list goes on and on.
War is ugly, something no one craves for, the people civilian or military are human beings, they have the same feelings, well except you who might be an exception. I hope not.
It is very easy for someone without too much inteligence to pick on a sub ject and try to tell the world it was wrong, the man responsible was a b utcher, unfortunately or fortunately we are seventy years on.
What was done then was seen in the most part as necessary to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible, to prevent even more deaths, unnecessary deaths.
You fail to comprehend that had the rocket's succeeded, which they could well have done, Hitler might have reversed the outcome.
Without doubt the rockets both V1 and V2 were wicked weapons of war, they had no idea where they were going to land, you obviously never experienced this fact.
No doubt you will come back with some smart arse reply, which will be wasted as I have no further interest in communicating with someone so bias.
Do have a good Christmas and say a prayer for all the dead on both sides of the spectrum, I might even say one for you. Goodbye or Auf Weidersen