Arthur'Bomber'Harris.

MrP

Banned
Well I stand by Harris.. but since I also stand by Haig that perhaps isn't much of a surprise.

Have you read Harris?

I'll turn this into a discussion of WWI historiography if it's the last thing I do! ;)

Seriously, though, I read up to about '16 before Christmas, but have been distracted since. Seemed a good writer, though. I understand he was quite pro-Haig (because of Haig's fondness for technology - Harris being a pro-tank chap) in years gone by, but now is rather anti-Haig.
 
Have you read Harris?

I'll turn this into a discussion of WWI historiography if it's the last thing I do! ;)

Seriously, though, I read up to about '16 before Christmas, but have been distracted since. Seemed a good writer, though. I understand he was quite pro-Haig (because of Haig's fondness for technology - Harris being a pro-tank chap) in years gone by, but now is rather anti-Haig.

Not properly. WW1 historiography isn't really my thing, finding it all too often cloyingly defensive or unreservedly critical to the point its obvious your doing a hatchet job. Harris is turning the overly positive line which I probably hold if I remember correctly, which may well be right historically but I think you have to put these things in context. Certainly the "butcher" line leaves open the question of what alternative was there? Thank you Fabius but sitting there while the French and Russians get pounded wasn't exactly an option.

I was looking for a modern account of Foch, but that seems hard to find, atleast in English.
 

MrP

Banned
Not properly. WW1 historiography isn't really my thing, finding it all too often cloyingly defensive or unreservedly critical to the point its obvious your doing a hatchet job. Harris is turning the overly positive line which I probably hold if I remember correctly, which may well be right historically but I think you have to put these things in context. Certainly the "butcher" line leaves open the question of what alternative was there? Thank you Fabius but sitting there while the French and Russians get pounded wasn't exactly an option.

I was looking for a modern account of Foch, but that seems hard to find, atleast in English.

I know what you mean. People can be so very angry about things even now - and that's just here, let alone the Dominions (mainly Aus, of course), who get to blame us for bad leadership, or the French, who are generally ignored by us! If I find anything on Foch, I'll drop you a line.
 
Considering the amount of fuel 3000 bombers used, wouldn't it make more sense to ground most of them a month or so...?:confused: Or tell Monty to stop dreaming about victory parades through Berlin until the Scheldt Estuary is cleared?:mad:

The problem wasn't the amount of supplies in UK, but transporting them to France and above all, to the frontline. A Lanc or B-17 would have taken off from UK and flown the supplies directly to the advancing troops with no strain to port facilities in France and supply trucks trying to fuel racing troops.
 
The problem wasn't the amount of supplies in UK, but transporting them to France and above all, to the frontline. A Lanc or B-17 would have taken off from UK and flown the supplies directly to the advancing troops with no strain to port facilities in France and supply trucks trying to fuel racing troops.
Nice theory, but IMO it runs into the same problem as with B-29s in China: the bombers burn so damn much gas getting the supplies across, & can ony deliver a relative trickle anyhow. Open the Scheldt, you eliminate problems of congestion, lack of supply, & strain on LOCs/Red Ball, at a stroke.
 
Top