Arthur'Bomber'Harris.

If he had left the area bombing campaign over Germany, would the War have lasted longer?

I had a conversation with a friend earlier on, who insists he was nothing but a war criminal, who neither lengthened nor shortened the war. I feel that he saved British lives and in the main, achieved his objective of destroying Germanys industrial complex, albiet at a high price in German lives. Whats everyone on heres opinion?
 
The decision to carry out area bombing was taken in July 1941. Harris was appointed Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command in February 1942. He wasn't responsible for the decision.

I agree with you that area bombing achieved it's objectives. It also forced Germany to commit a significant part of its limited resources to defending itself. However, the bombers might have been usefully deployed elsewhere, for example in North Africa and Italy, and or in the Atlantic against submarines. And the resources used to build the bombers could have been used to build ships/tanks etc. And the destruction of whole cities did take away some of our moral high ground. So I think it's difficult to say what effect the decision to go for area bombing had, overall.

If someone other than Harris had been C-in-C, I'm sure the strategy of area bombing would remain, but it wouldn't have been carried out as efficiently.
 

backstab

Banned
Bomber Harris was nothing more than a War Criminal. Knowing that Stategic Bombing was having little effect on the German War industry he kept it up as a way to break the spirits of the German Civilians. He did not give a stuff on whether there was or was not war industies in the Target Area , just as long as he killed as many civilians as they could.
Bomber Harris stands shoulder to shoulder with other winners like Heydrich, Himmler and Dirlewanger.
 
World War II showed pretty solidly that bombing civilian centers does not break the spirit of the enemy country, instead it tends to have the opposite effect. As I recall German industrial production was also still going up fairly steadily despite the strategic bombing campaign, and only started to decrease once Allied and Soviet armies were driving the Germans back on land.

That said, Germany was forced to divert resources to fight against the bombing campaign. However, diverting those resources into other areas might well have served the British better in continuing the war effort.
 

backstab

Banned
Some info on how popular he had become......

Despite protests from Germany as well as some in Britain, the Bomber Harris Trust (an RAF veterans organisation formed to defend the good name of their commander), erected a statue of him outside the RAF Church of St Clement Danes, London in 1992. It was unveiled by the Queen Mother who looked surprised when she was jeered by protesters. The line on the statue reads "The Nation owes them all an immense debt." The statue had to be guarded by policemen day and night for some time as it was frequently sprayed with graffiti.
 
As I recall German industrial production was also still going up fairly steadily despite the strategic bombing campaign, and only started to decrease once Allied and Soviet armies were driving the Germans back on land.

That's true - bombing was almost completely ineffective during the earlier part of the war, but became more and more effective as the war went on. 1.18 million tons of bombs were dropped on Germany in the last 12 months of the war, compared to 0.24 million prior to that.

The reason for the massive increase was due to three things - the constantly increasing number of Allied aircraft after America's entry into the war, tactical improvements (especially using long-range fighters to escort bombers), and the decision at the end of 1943 to make hitting German aircraft production a priority. The subsequent reduction in the number of German aircraft must have had some effect on the success of the invasion of France.

It is estimated that Germany lost 17% of its production in 1944, due to bombing.
 
I don't know about his earlier attacksbut in my opinion the Bombing of Dresden was a War crime.

There was no way that Germany could win and it was only a matter of weeks before Germany surrendered.

Over 35000 people were killed and god alone how many injured and all to assist the Russian armies.

I wonder how much the allied high command came to regret that little decision to use nbomber command to help the red army.
 
Frankly I've long got bored with this topic. He was put in charge to carry out a policy which had been the raison d'etre of the RAF since its inception. The policy didn't work (in my opinion) but that he kept on with it was due to a combination of the RAF trying to justify its existence and Portal's weakness (IIRC the 4 vol official history of the Bomber Offensive by Webster and Frankland had to be censored because Portal's complete inability to control Harris was brutally shown up.) Harris has become a scapegoat. To me the central problem with this debate is the tendency to shift between moral and physical arguments. "The offensive was a war crime and it didn't work." Fine- but if it had worked would it have been justified? If it could have worked, and ,say, Bell, the Bishop of Chichester came up and told me that bombing Germany was immoral, I'd have replied, "fuck off you little git and go someplace else to cosset your conscience. The Germans are running death factories in the East. I'll do anything to get the war over quickly."

As it happened, I don't think it worked, I regard with doubt all those selective figures which are produced on German industrial output, believe that the resources spent would have been far better used elsewhere, and tend to class those books which declare it a success on a par with all the works by "house historians" making claims for the genius of Field Marshal Haig. Or that more recent one I came across which claimed that the Charge of the Light Brigade was a triumph.
 
The RAF night time bombing campaign seems flawed in retrospect.
Once the P-51 Mustang was in service to provide escort for US day time bombers, the loss rate per mission went down dramatically (about 3-4%)
At the same time the RAF night time bombing was suffering significantly heavier losses (up to 10% per mission)
The loss in personnel & the ineffectiveness of the attacks makes one wonder about the logic in the RAF high command
 
Bomber Harris was nothing more than a War Criminal. Knowing that Stategic Bombing was having little effect on the German War industry he kept it up as a way to break the spirits of the German Civilians. He did not give a stuff on whether there was or was not war industies in the Target Area , just as long as he killed as many civilians as they could.

In fact British analysis during the war suggested that the bombing was having an effect. Harris was using this information so what he believed was not what you suggested.

Post-war analysis suggested otherwise.
New analysis, going back to contemporary German sources, once again suggests the bombing had an effect.


Bomber Harris stands shoulder to shoulder with other winners like Heydrich, Himmler and Dirlewanger.

Obnoxious drivel that trivualises the Holocaust.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Much would depend on what is done instead of area bombing.

As it was Bomber Command ended up with 1000+ heavy bombers which according to British calculations from the early 40's was equivalent to building and running 25 battleships (RN had max 15 battleships in OTL WWII). I haven't got any equivalent "key" to Divisions, but it obviously would be a very high number.

The disruptive effect of bombing could be achieved by focussing on a much smaller number of fast (twin engine) bombers, trained for low altitude precision bombing - the Mosquite raids on Gestapo headquarters in Europe is the inspiration. Here a majority of the bombs actually hit the target, and not the very small fraction in area bombing. But that would of course not have Bomber Command be a major arm of its own but rather a specialist branch - which is probably also why it never got that far.

The freed resources I would recommend be used on building a creditable force to defend the Far East, or re-take it by own power (instead of relying on USA to island-jump the Pacific and nuke Japan). That gives a real chance of the Empire actually surviving the war.

What is warcrimes in real life mainly depends on who wins. In my mind however the criteria could be if a given action serves the just purpose of the war or just is senseless killing. In that context I tend to think the bombing campaign incl. Harris implementation of it was a warcrime. The effect on German war effort simply was too small to justify the cost (especially compered to alternatives), both on own and enemy side. From that also follows that I would have accepted a far higher number of casualties, also among civilians, if it had decisively shortened the war.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Battleships and Bombers...

The British calculations that Redbeard mentioned neglect a key factor--time. No matter how many resources you have, a battleship takes YEARS to build. Not one single battleship laid down while a nation was at war in World War II was completed by the end of the war, IIRC. So if you build 25 battleships concurrently, you will get them all years after you start them. (And that's not even including the long lead time items that are ordered long before the keel is laid--items such as guns, and especially reduction gears.)
(The lightning fast builds of the Great War were accomplished by skimming components from other ships, which were either delayed or cancelled.)

By comparison, of you commit to building 1000 bombers, some will be ready within a much shorter time, and you will getr a continuing flow of bombers after that.
 

backstab

Banned
Obnoxious drivel that trivualises the Holocaust.


Got nothing to do with the Holocaust. A War Crime is a War crime wether its done by us or them. YOU should not trivualise something that was toally unnecesary and done for the sake of making a point!
 
Consider the immediate military effects of the combined bomber offensive:-
(a) All Luftwaffe fighters were pulled back to defend Germany, so interfered but little with the land offensives.
(b) Something like 3000 AA guns, which we all know could double as AT guns, had to be sited in German cities instead of popping off T34s and Shermans.

The economic damage caused was immense and perhaps the dislocation was more important. I should mention the low production of tanks/SP guns (see Guderian) the inability to get prefabricated U-Boat parts to the North Sea Ports and, most important, the difficulty in transporting petroleum products to places of need.

BTW, there was a considerable climate of opposition in the UK to continuation of the offensive in 1944/45. Bishop Bell was prominent, and was ironically, Harris's own chaplain. He was later a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. There was also a strong body of opinion in favour of continuation. The fastest way to understand this is to carefully read the lyrics of Noel Coward's "Don't let's be beastly to the Hun."

But the question is, essentially, what if the bombers were used for other purposes. What? The only thing that crosses my mind is infantry support. They were very effective, see the first two hours of the Epsom offensive, when the British tanks could do pretty much as they liked. Thereafter, it all fell apart, so would the bombers use in this role have shortened the war? Probably not.

In terms of stating that Bomber Command achieved little, I have to point out that postwar, the RAF allotted no less than 8 people to assess the effects of its bomber offensive on Germany. The USAF sent 450. The USAF report, curiously, indicated that their own bombing was very effective.
 

backstab

Banned
Consider the immediate military effects of the combined bomber offensive:-
(a) All Luftwaffe fighters were pulled back to defend Germany, so interfered but little with the land offensives.
(b) Something like 3000 AA guns, which we all know could double as AT guns, had to be sited in German cities instead of popping off T34s and Shermans.

The economic damage caused was immense and perhaps the dislocation was more important. I should mention the low production of tanks/SP guns (see Guderian) the inability to get prefabricated U-Boat parts to the North Sea Ports and, most important, the difficulty in transporting petroleum products to places of need.

BTW, there was a considerable climate of opposition in the UK to continuation of the offensive in 1944/45. Bishop Bell was prominent, and was ironically, Harris's own chaplain. He was later a founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. There was also a strong body of opinion in favour of continuation. The fastest way to understand this is to carefully read the lyrics of Noel Coward's "Don't let's be beastly to the Hun."

But the question is, essentially, what if the bombers were used for other purposes. What? The only thing that crosses my mind is infantry support. They were very effective, see the first two hours of the Epsom offensive, when the British tanks could do pretty much as they liked. Thereafter, it all fell apart, so would the bombers use in this role have shortened the war? Probably not.

In terms of stating that Bomber Command achieved little, I have to point out that postwar, the RAF allotted no less than 8 people to assess the effects of its bomber offensive on Germany. The USAF sent 450. The USAF report, curiously, indicated that their own bombing was very effective.

Your right about the effects of tieing up a large amount of defences but it still does not give them the right to target civilians deliberatly using incendary devices.
 
Got nothing to do with the Holocaust. A War Crime is a War crime wether its done by us or them. YOU should not trivualise something that was toally unnecesary and done for the sake of making a point!

What??

You compared Harris to Heydrich, who authorised the Holocaust at Wannsee.

The point was that bombing was not unncessary, and the general consensus now is that is did affect the German war economy.

Your position is entirely arbitrary - do you have a moral problem with the naval blockade of Germany which caused immense suffering in either world wars?
 

backstab

Banned
What??

You compared Harris to Heydrich, who authorised the Holocaust at Wannsee.

The point was that bombing was not unncessary, and the general consensus now is that is did affect the German war economy.

Your position is entirely arbitrary - do you have a moral problem with the naval blockade of Germany which caused immense suffering in either world wars?
NO but obvously you codone the fire bombing of innocent civilians...... remember there was NO war industries in Dresden. It was done to destroy the moral of the German people.

You compared Harris to Heydrich, who authorised the Holocaust at Wannsee.
Mmm let me see, Both ordered the killings of innocent civilians , whats the difference ?
 
Last edited:
NO but obvously you codone the fire bombing of innocent civilians...... remember there was NO war industries in Dresden. It was done to destroy the moral of the German people.

One looks forward to the military operation that creates no risk to civilians. It still eludes us. Perhaps you might like to reflect on the vast civilian suffering caused by the Allied ground advance towards Germany, and the aforementioned naval war.

Mmm let me see, Both ordered the killings of innocent civilians , whats the difference ?

If you cannot tell, you really are in trouble.

It is hard to know where to begin with the difference between the bombing of Germany and the Holocaust. I suggest you experiment with thinking things through rather than glib simplification and ill-thought through comparisons.

You have made some crappy tabloid point by highlighting the air war in the grim reality of total war. That is all.
 
Bomber Harris was nothing more than a War Criminal. Knowing that Stategic Bombing was having little effect on the German War industry he kept it up as a way to break the spirits of the German Civilians. He did not give a stuff on whether there was or was not war industies in the Target Area , just as long as he killed as many civilians as they could.
Bomber Harris stands shoulder to shoulder with other winners like Heydrich, Himmler and Dirlewanger.
Harris had a responsibility for the RAF personel, who went to Germany, and their safety would have been at the forefront of his mind. Why was this wrong?

With the Technology avaliable at the time, precision bombing was very difficult, and RAF losses were unacceptably high. Area bombing WAS succesful in hindering German industry, it DID reduce the losses to RAF bomber crews, whether you think it was justified or not.

If area bombing was to be avoided then the only alternative would be precision bombing, and if the RAF and later the USAF as well had tried that the losses would have been too large to make it worthwhile, and would have prolonged the war, as it was it diverted German units which would otherwise be used against the Russians, the British or the Americans.

As for the bombing of Dresden, the matter in which people have claimed is a war crime, 23% of the Industry of the City was destroyed. The infrastructure was destroyed, and the communications were severely hampered. This is important as Dresden was a centre through which German Troops were heading to the Eastern Front, also in relation to it being called a 'war crime', the Soviets used the bombing during the Cold War to help promote the cause of Communism, and create an anti-western athmosphere, with these factors combined, I disagree that the bombing was a war crime.

As for the claim that Harris was no better than Dirlewanger, Heidrich or Himmler, that is a simplistic and false comparison. That implies that he was on a par with the mass killings of the holocaust, which is false, and does not take his reasonings into account.

Harris is much maligned, and I dont feel its deserved.
 

backstab

Banned
One looks forward to the military operation that creates no risk to civilians. It still eludes us. Perhaps you might like to reflect on the vast civilian suffering caused by the Allied ground advance towards Germany, and the aforementioned naval war.



If you cannot tell, you really are in trouble.

It is hard to know where to begin with the difference between the bombing of Germany and the Holocaust. I suggest you experiment with thinking things through rather than glib simplification and ill-thought through comparisons.

You have made some crappy tabloid point by highlighting the air war in the grim reality of total war. That is all.


What military targets were in Dresden that warrented Fire Bombing of the Resedential Ares ?
 
Top