Arthur 'bomber' Harris, War hero or criminal

Merch

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

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

You seem to have an inclination against the Germans of WW2.
I believe the Germans only resorted to unrestricted warfare in submarines after the British camoflauged armed ships as merchant shipping. Prior to that there does seem to have been a sytem of honour to board ships.
I'd be more questioning why arms and war material were being put on ships with civilian passengers, (human shields anyone?).

The worst tragedy was the sinking of a liner of refugees near the end of the war by the Russians. Most of what the Germans sunk was actually war material, you cant blame them for trying that, in a war?

Do you have a ship in mind when you speak of a ship of children being sunk? if so please inform us. I'm not particularily aware of one, but if there is I'd rather know, so how is that any different to bombing flat of civilians (That includes children) as Harris wanted to terrorise the civilian populace into submission, by destroying them and all infrastructure.
The citizens of Germany had little or no control over how the German Nation was run, certainly no more than we do now and that isnt much.
The Nazis didnt even have an overwhelming majority of the populace when they were elected, only a majority of the overall votes.

Also, you jump into the V weapons? ok, so this was possibly considered the German answer to unrestricted bombing, an incoming V1 or V2 does not have the same devastating effect as carpet bombing, its indiscriminate alright, but I find them no more wicked than being carpet bombed.

Coles

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

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.

Ok, I admit I have no experience of being attacked by rockets. I give you that one. But by February 1945 there was no doubt about the outcome of the war. And the incineration of Dresden and it's civilians did little to contribute to bring the war to a close. Not that it matters. To deliberately target civilians on such a massive scale (regardless of the motives) is a war crime. Now perhaps your argument is that we shouldn't judge the events 70 years later (you said that, no?) but that is precisely what this thread is about.

Merch

I thought all this talk of was he or wasn't he

Must be a current definition of what a war criminal is,

So by todays standards, he was and a lot of others involved, he didnt do it on his own, this based on current information.

At the time he probably was not considered one and for a long time after such was the animosity towards the Germans.

But by todays standards it seems he is, but then again so were a lot of others.
There are plenty of democratic world leaders even till recently that fit this bill too though.
It depends on what side you're on and how righteous you feel I guess.



The Rome Treaty of 1998-2002 creating the International Criminal Court defined war crimes at §8, at great length as is typical with treaties, and as follows:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

Gee Bag

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, if I appeared overly arsey I apologise. But I do think your posts were over the top and were against the general rule of attacking the post not the poster.

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.

Sounds like your making a case for collective punishment. This was outlawed in 1949 by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

If you were to argue that bombing German cities was a legitamate tactic up to late 1944 I would probably agree with you. After that it was gratuitous.

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.

This thread is about Arthur Harris. All right thinking people know the Nazi's were abhorent, I have never suggested otherwise. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

No doubt had the war been won by the axis would have witnessed the same retribution of our leaders.

There probably wouldn'y have been a trial, just executions.

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.

Dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was justifiable in my opinion. It forced the Japanese to admit defeat before the home islands were invaded which ultimatley saved the lives of millions of Japanese citizens and Allied troops. In addition, it deterred Stalin from invading western Europe.
The bombing of Dresden did little if nothing to hasten the end of the war in Europe.

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.

Whatever about Churchill (thats a discussion for another day) Harris is one of those rare individuals who doesn't seem to have ever been troubled by second thoughts.

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?

Again your putting words in my mouth.

Of course I am aware that vast numbers of people were killed in German air raids. I never once suggested this was insignificant. The point about the comparitive size and efficacy of bomber forces was made in reply to one poster querying whether any of the Nuremberg defendants were charged with indiscriminate aerial bombing. It would have been counter productive for the allies to have made such a charge against the Germans when allied airforces caused far more civilian casulaties.

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.

Submarines don't fly, therefore they were outside of the scope of the discussion until now. But since you brought them up.....Admiral Doenitz as head of the Kriegsmarine was charged at Nuremberg with waging unrestricted submarine warfare in breach of the 1936 Naval Protocol. This charge was not assessed by the court because of similar actions undertaken by allied naval forces, in particular the British Admiralty. I think this reinforces my point about no germans being charged with aerial bombing of civilian targets.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/JudgeDoenitz.html

One might be correct in saying the bombing of Dresden was perhaps not the finest hour

A bit of an understatement there

War solves nothing, we should have learnt that from the first world war and the carnage on the somme.

It kind of does solve things. The fact that you continually refer to what might have happened had the axis won infers that you think so to.

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

More whataboutery. I'm pretty sure Hitler would have used nukes if he had them, but he didn't. Therefore, I consider this line of argument irrelevant.

Did the generals deflect to the allies?

I've no idea what this means

Arthur was a hero.

Fair enough if thats your opinion, we'll have to agree to disagree

Wishing you and yours a peaceful Christmas

Same to you

and at least the Gestapo won't appear, we hope not.

Now that would be a surprise

Coles

Gee Bag wrote: »

Dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was justifiable in my opinion. It forced the Japanese to admit defeat before the home islands were invaded which ultimatley saved the lives of millions of Japanese citizens and Allied troops. In addition, it deterred Stalin from invading western Europe.

So what was more important? Was it the weapon or the willingness to use it?

I would argue that the Japanese would have got the message if the Bomb had been dropped 10 miles off Tokyo Bay, or at the very least if it had have been dropped on a small island. To drop it on a civilian city was a war crime by any measure. To drop it on a second civilian city when there was no doubt whatsoever about the outcome was one of the most atrocious and immoral acts ever committed by man.

No doubt I'll be accused of being 'anti-american' now!:rolleyes:

Gee Bag

Coles wrote: »

So what was more important? Was it the weapon or the willingness to use it?

I would argue that the Japanese would have got the message if the Bomb had been dropped 10 miles off Tokyo Bay, or at the very least if it had have been dropped on a small island.

I would tend to think the willingness to use the bomb was more important. Given the control of the media at the time I think it very unlikely that the Japanese would have surrendered without the effects of the bomb being demonstrated in a way that could not be covered up.

The level of resistance by Japanese troops throughout the Pacific campaign, especially at Okinawa, and the onset of the Kamikaze campaign were a strong indication of how bloody an invasion of the home islands would have been. (I think projected allied losses alone were in the reigon of 2,000,000)

To drop it on a civilian city was a war crime by any measure. To drop it on a second civilian city when there was no doubt whatsoever about the outcome was one of the most atrocious and immoral acts ever committed by man.

Your probably right in saying it was a war crime, but as we all know only the losers stand trial.

I would argue that the use of nuclear weapons was a neccessary evil and can not be seperated from context i.e. the massive scale of killing worldwide from 1937 onwards and the need to draw a definitive line under the conflict.

I would also argue that the demonstarion of the destructive power of nuclear weapons in Japan has kept the peace between major powers to this day.

By the by here's a pretty amazing timelapse video showing every nuclear explosion since 1945. It's a bit slow until the late 1950s. Well worth watching if you have the time.

Jawgap

I think the general view now is that the Japanese were well on their way to surrendering before the US dropped the bomb.

Curtis LeMay said that "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all."

The main reason (in two parts) was to demonstrate to the USSR that the US had developed the weapon and that they were willing to use it. It's also been argued that the use of the weapon was a signal to the USSR that, despite coming into the war against Japan, this was not their sphere of influence.

That line of argument suggests that in dropping the bomb the US upped the ante with the USSR who felt compelled to rush their own weapon development and - more importantly - not to negotiate or concede much in the post-War era for fear of being seen to be vulnerable to 'atomic diplomacy.'

Stalin gave his "Bolshoi" speech in 1946 where he went on about the inevitability of war and the need to protect against it, and linked that to domestic policy and investment in technology. He specifically referenced atomic power and the West took that to mean that the USSR was willing to pre-emptively strike with nuclear weapons to avoid being attacked.

Another argument suggests that it was used to bring the war to a conclusion in days to prevent the USSR having much claim to have a role in a post-War Japan. Operations Downfall, Olympic and Coronet - the invasion of the home islands - were months away from being implemented which would have given the Soviets valuable time to involve themselves in the Far East and claim territory the way they had in Europe - the nuclear bombing of Japan prevented that.

Using the atom bomb in Europe was never going to happen because of the proximity of US and Allied ground forces.

dpe

Most Britons who actually know anything about WWII wouldn't regard Harris as a "hero" (which usually involves putting oneself in harm's way for a start).

On the plus side, he was a great organiser, single-minded in his approach, and in the first "total war", he wasn't squeamish; which is one of the things that works against him in the modern era; he was realistic and honest about area bombing whereas others, particularly the Americans, were in denial about the effects of bombing and believed in precision bombing which was a total fiction with the equipment they had. Harris didn't give a damn about German civilian casualties, and he was probably right not to worry about it, and for the whole period from 1941 to 1943 bombing was the only meaningful way to take the war to the Germans and actually help/show the Soviets that Britain was still an ally worth having.

On the minus side, he overstated the impact of area bombing and believed right until the end of the war (and beyond) that bombing was a war-winning strategy in its own right. He fought tooth and nail to stop his bombers' redeployment to support D-Day and other battlefield operations, regarding them as a waste of time, which was both politically naive, and egotistical (the guy wasn't a team player, like so many WWII generals). After D-Day, Churchill should have been the one to rein Harris in; it reached the point in early 1945 that the RAF and USAAF were keeping score rather than affecting the German war machine.

Overall, a bit of an arsehole, but a man of his time, and not a war criminal by the standards of the time.

pedroeibar1

dpe wrote: »

.............. he was realistic and honest about area bombing whereas others, particularly the Americans, were in denial about the effects of bombing and believed in precision bombing which was a total fiction with the equipment they had. ...................

Gen Spaatz of the USAF was in full agreement with Harris- Ike had to order them to release planes for bombing the German defensive positions prior to D-Day. Omaha Beach is a good example. In the 30 minutes preceding H-hour, 329 Liberators and Fortresses of the Eight Air Force were used to bomb the ridge controlling that beach and its exits. They dropped 13,000 bombs none of which fell on Omaha Beach, most falling far inland.

Before the invasion French civilian dead amounted to 15,000 and 19,000 injured; in the first 24 hrs of the invasion 3,000 civilians were killed, more than double the total number of American dead. (figs from 'D-Day' by Beevor).

As for US planes and bombing, there was a British Army saying at that time 'If it's grey we duck, if it is brown they duck, but if it is silver we all duck!'

dpe

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Gen Spaatz of the USAF was in full agreement with Harris- Ike had to order them to release planes for bombing the German defensive positions prior to D-Day. Omaha Beach is a good example. In the 30 minutes preceding H-hour, 329 Liberators and Fortresses of the Eight Air Force were used to bomb the ridge controlling that beach and its exits. They dropped 13,000 bombs none of which fell on Omaha Beach, most falling far inland.

Before the invasion French civilian dead amounted to 15,000 and 19,000 injured; in the first 24 hrs of the invasion 3,000 civilians were killed, more than double the total number of American dead. (figs from 'D-Day' by Beevor).

As for US planes and bombing, there was a British Army saying at that time 'If it's grey we duck, if it is brown they duck, but if it is silver we all duck!'

Spaatz had that attitude by 1944, but had been like most of the Americans when they arrived in the UK in his belief that the Norden Bomb sight was a quantum leap in precision bombing (which it may well have been but the aircraft and under-fire crews weren't). It was only after an awful lot of losses that the Americans started to see that the RAF weren't just a bunch of limey idiots, and that night/area made more sense with the tools available than day/"precision". If the P-51D hadn't come along, the Americans would probably have switched to night bombing as well.

As for the bombing of Omaha beach, the fact that it was one of many tactical bombing failures in the war (Cassino would be another obvious one) doesn't alter the fact that it made more sense to divert bombers to support battlefield operations on D-Day and afterwards than to blindly keep pounding away at German cities.

Jawgap

Cassino, D-Day etc weren't failures of bombing they were failures of doctrine.

Spaatz, Doolittle et al came up with the idea of "putting the city in the streets" - in other words blasting buildings to deny the enemy cover. The unintended conseuqnce of which was to turn places like Monte Cassino, Caen etc into defensive bastions.

On the specific point of Harris he decried the use of 'heavies' as a tactical instrument and his view was borne out. The post D-Day bombing missions failed because bomb aimers delayed the release of their ordinance for fear of hitting their own men, meaning - obviously enough - they also missed the enemy.

In contrast LeMay had no problems with bringing the B29 down to 5000 feet to fire bomb Tokyo.

knucklehead6

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

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.

Just as an aside, but which submarine was this?

The greatest loss of life in maritime history was onboard the Wilhelm Gustloff, sunk by a soviet submarine in the dying days of World War 2.

dpe

Jawgap wrote: »

On the specific point of Harris he decried the use of 'heavies' as a tactical instrument and his view was borne out. The post D-Day bombing missions failed because bomb aimers delayed the release of their ordinance for fear of hitting their own men, meaning - obviously enough - they also missed the enemy.
.

Except of course, when they didn't, like the annihilation of Panzer Lehr, which also took out a couple of hundred Americans as well, including a General.

Jawgap

dpe wrote: »

Except of course, when they didn't, like the annihilation of Panzer Lehr, which also took out a couple of hundred Americans as well, including a General.

Which kind of proved Harris' point that heavy bombers are an extremely blunt instrument.

nuac

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.

Sorry to hear of your father's death. The Japanese were inhuman to their prisoners

jonniebgood1

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The greatest loss of life in maritime history was onboard the Wilhelm Gustloff, sunk by a soviet submarine in the dying days of World War 2.

Indeed. It was part of a tragic series of sinkings, some of the worst losses ever. Of course the ships were loaded with a mixture of refugees and escaping soldiers which made them targets. we had a thread on them http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72628307

jonniebgood1

dpe wrote: »

Overall, a bit of an arsehole, but a man of his time, and not a war criminal by the standards of the time.

Above is a good summary IMO. I would regard Churchills distancing himself from Harris after Dresden as being quite shameful. He had earlier in the war been quite happy to celebrate Harris's success when it suited. Harris did what he had to do to- People may disagree with his justification of bombings that had large numbers of civilian casualties but I would agree with his contention that these raids damaged the German war effort. Many of the civilians were involved in industry that benefited the war which he used as a justification and I see little valid argument against this.

Coles

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

People may disagree with his justification of bombings that had large numbers of civilian casualties but I would agree with his contention that these raids damaged the German war effort. Many of the civilians were involved in industry that benefited the war which he used as a justification and I see little valid argument against this.

The vast majority of the citizens in Dresden in February 1945 were women, children and the elderly. No doubt some of these people worked in factories that directly contributed to the war effort, but how far do you want to extend your argument? Is there an acceptable ratio of children that can be killed for every factory worker? I don't think so, and the deliberate targeting of any civilians can be regarded as a war crime. It's interesting to note that only about 100 soldiers were killed during the attack that incinerated that city.

By any measure, Arthur Harris would be regarded as a war criminal if he committed his crimes today, so why judge him sympathetically? It's not as if he can be punished for his crimes, but by defending his actions we are making them acceptable in current and future conflicts.

Kilkenny14

Just on the culpability of Arthur Harris for the British air offensive,, One air general who was held responsible for bombing was General Alexander Lohr, who was in command of Luftflotte 4 when they bombed Belgrade during the German invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941.

He and 6 others were put on trial for the crime in Yugoslavia in 1948, found guilty and executed. The article below goes into the detail of the bombing and the trial.

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/081.shtml

Chuck Stone

Some U.S. pilots were not convinced by this rationale: they could plainly see that the target was essentially civilian and a few bombardiers deliberately released their bombs prematurely in open country outside Dresden.

runestones.blogspot.ie

Heartening to see a little humaneness amidst all that savagery.

tac foley

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Heartening to see a little humaneness amidst all that savagery.

Much of that 'humaneness' flew out of the window when the western death camps were over-run by the Allies.

tac

jonniebgood1

Coles wrote: »

The vast majority of the citizens in Dresden in February 1945 were women, children and the elderly. No doubt some of these people worked in factories that directly contributed to the war effort, but how far do you want to extend your argument?

That is the dilemma. This was one of the most brutal wars that there has been so to my mind the damage inflicted is in the main justifiable. Where the line is drawn is difficult to say. For example the bombing of Hamburg in 1943 was during a time when the wars outcome was still in question so any contribution to the war effort may be deemed justifiable. The Dresden bombing is not as easy to justify. This much is clear but my opinion would be that given the preceding 6 years of warfare that it was unfair of Churchill to try and distance himself from it.

Coles wrote: »

By any measure, Arthur Harris would be regarded as a war criminal if he committed his crimes today, so why judge him sympathetically? It's not as if he can be punished for his crimes, but by defending his actions we are making them acceptable in current and future conflicts.

Different times, different weapon capabilities, different morals in war. WWII was a war between similar strength (until Pearl Harbour) forces wheras now when a battle beteen the US/ UK and Iraq begins there is little doubt who will win- the point being it is easier to moralise when we know the outcome and indeed capabilities of an army.

Snickers Man

Many of the generals commanding bomber forces knew they were behaving in a criminal fashion.

Curtis LeMay who was in charge of America's bombing offensive against Japan late in the war was quoted as saying that if America lost the war he would have been indicted for war crimes.

Incidentally, the American attitude to bombing Japan differed markedly from their policy towards Germany. Against their fellow white Anglo Saxons, the indisputably racist Americans were loth to deploy terror bombing tactics such as the British used. They insisted on daylight "precision" raids on discretely identified targets like factories and military targets.

Against the yellow men of Japan, they had no qualms about incinerating as many as possible and under Le May's command devastating firebombing raids were launched against Tokyo and other Japanese cities.

Harris also mentions in his memoirs that he would frequently tell his staff always to salute a lamp post every time they walked past one because "if we lose this war, we'll all be hanging from one"

He knew what the consequences of his actions would have been.

Chuck Stone

tac foley wrote: »

Much of that 'humaneness' flew out of the window when the western death camps were over-run by the Allies.

What?