Bomber Command fliers in their own words
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
I don't see any opprobrium or hate in this thread, or any mentions of specific bomber groups or nations
the blokes in the original article were talking about their own experiences, obviously
I do.the blokes in the original article were talking about their own experiences, obviously
You obviously see very different things to me.
ClaphamGT3 said:
The issue here is that the fact that area bombing would be morally and - in probability - legally unacceptable now doesn't mean that it was unacceptable in 1939 - 1945.
There is no contradiction in saying that whilst modern technology renders area bombing unacceptable now, it was valid and appropriate in the second world war and that those who served in Bomber Command deserve our admiration for undertaking a dangerous and distasteful campaign
Area bombing is obsolete now because we have super accurate bombs for precision targets and thermo nuclear city busters for everything else. Pretty sure civilian casualties would be worse if, God forbid, there is another World War, I think everyone tries to ignore that.There is no contradiction in saying that whilst modern technology renders area bombing unacceptable now, it was valid and appropriate in the second world war and that those who served in Bomber Command deserve our admiration for undertaking a dangerous and distasteful campaign
Hugo a Gogo said:
Eric Mc said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
I don't see any opprobrium or hate in this thread, or any mentions of specific bomber groups or nations
the blokes in the original article were talking about their own experiences, obviously
I do.the blokes in the original article were talking about their own experiences, obviously
You obviously see very different things to me.
Hugo a Gogo said:
I didn't invent the definitions of war crimes
the Hague conventions said "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited" and "Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited."
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C
I know why the allies launched the bombing offensive, they had to be seen to be doing something, bombing Germany by air was the only thing they could do, offensively, until such time as an invasion of europe was possible.
It seems you both charge and condone. Much of the bombing was aimed at miltary targets of course, but there will always be other victims. You cannot cancel a raid because a civilian might be in there somewhere (these days the offensive would be stopped and a public enquiry held while they investigate whiplash claims and pay compensation, but you can't do that in a real war.)the Hague conventions said "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited" and "Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited."
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C
I know why the allies launched the bombing offensive, they had to be seen to be doing something, bombing Germany by air was the only thing they could do, offensively, until such time as an invasion of europe was possible.
Hugo a Gogo said:
by 1945 though, it's hard to see what destroying cities like Dresden or Würzburg really achieved
One can suggest that now, but by the end of WW2 there was no inclination to relax - the Allies wanted the war over asap. There was no hindsight available. But it is no good, sitting in the pacifist comfort of the 21st century, to wring ones hands and say how bad it all was, until you can suggest what else might have been done. Handwringing and feeling guilty by proxy are entirely pointless wastes of time and emotion, and so is applying the peacetime standards of 2012 to the wartime standards of the 1940s.
I recall an elderly cleaning lady at college who said 'The only good German is a dead one', and no doubt that was the general view of most wartime civilians, gained during the Blitz, and who would have been thoroughly in support of giving some back. Yes it's wrong, but that's how it was, and you need to understand that before you can understand why the rest happened. History cannot be changed retrospectively to meet 21st century idealism.
Dresden was bombed to appease the Russians, who requested we do it. On the basis that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' we foolishly thought the Russians were going to be our allies after the war (Churchill suspected otherwise but was ignored). We made a lot of sacrifices to help the Russians, and got damn all thanks for it, and no payments either. Stalin was smarter than anyone.
On a parting note, consider that the only reason modern Britons can spill forth 21st century ideals is because, 70 years ago, we won. And that is why I find people who use that freeedom to chastise their own side incomprehensible.
For those who were slating the BBC for not covering the Bomber Command memorial properly - right now on the News channel they are Conningsby talking about the Lanc.
They will be covering the official unveiling live on the News channel.
They are running a "Tribute to Bomber Command" documentary on BBC at 5.00 pm and showing it again at 11.20 pm and it will be on iPlayer for at least a week.
They will be covering the official unveiling live on the News channel.
They are running a "Tribute to Bomber Command" documentary on BBC at 5.00 pm and showing it again at 11.20 pm and it will be on iPlayer for at least a week.
Simpo Two said:
It seems you both charge and condone. Much of the bombing was aimed at miltary targets of course, but there will always be other victims. You cannot cancel a raid because a civilian might be in there somewhere (these days the offensive would be stopped and a public enquiry held while they investigate whiplash claims and pay compensation, but you can't do that in a real war.)
I'm neither charging nor condoning, as you say it's pointless applying modern standards and modern viewpointsI'm simply saying by the Allies own standards pre-war, as in the Hague treaties, indiscriminate area bombing of cities was wrong, illegal even
Simpo Two said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
by 1945 though, it's hard to see what destroying cities like Dresden or Würzburg really achieved
One can suggest that now, but by the end of WW2 there was no inclination to relax - the Allies wanted the war over asap. There was no hindsight available. But it is no good, sitting in the pacifist comfort of the 21st century, to wring ones hands and say how bad it all was, until you can suggest what else might have been done. Handwringing and feeling guilty by proxy are entirely pointless wastes of time and emotion, and so is applying the peacetime standards of 2012 to the wartime standards of the 1940s.
I recall an elderly cleaning lady at college who said 'The only good German is a dead one', and no doubt that was the general view of most wartime civilians, gained during the Blitz, and who would have been thoroughly in support of giving some back. Yes it's wrong, but that's how it was, and you need to understand that before you can understand why the rest happened. History cannot be changed retrospectively to meet 21st century idealism.
Dresden was bombed to appease the Russians, who requested we do it. On the basis that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' we foolishly thought the Russians were going to be our allies after the war (Churchill suspected otherwise but was ignored). We made a lot of sacrifices to help the Russians, and got damn all thanks for it, and no payments either. Stalin was smarter than anyone.
On a parting note, consider that the only reason modern Britons can spill forth 21st century ideals is because, 70 years ago, we won. And that is why I find people who use that freeedom to chastise their own side incomprehensible.
Don't you see any hypocrisy in going on about 'our brave boys, doing a dirty job because they were ordered to, they didn't choose to' whilst berating the evil Hun for doing the same with exactly the same comfortable hindsight
a lot of wartime civilians would have expressed similar sentiments to your cleaning lady about the people bombing them, whichever country they lived in
The stated "aims" (no pun) of the American bomber offensive on Germany may have been to carry out a precision atack on German industry. The reality was that they were no more able to be precise in daylight as the RAF were at night. The US bomber offensive was every bit as devastating to the civilian population as that of the RAF.
Maybe the RAF lost public support because they were honest about what the technology of the day could deliver.
I just think it is sad we are having this debate at this very moment.
Maybe the RAF lost public support because they were honest about what the technology of the day could deliver.
I just think it is sad we are having this debate at this very moment.
Bedazzled said:
the allies killing 250,000 civilians indiscriminately with a nuclear bomb was one of the worst moments in history. But I wonder how many lives it may have saved as a cold-war deterrent
More directly, how many US lives it saved by not having to invade mainland Japan. That was their main aim - and the Japanese had proven they would fight to the death rather than surrender. So yes, if you have a new wonder weapon, you get on and use it.To return briefly to why Bomber Command get all the flak (no pun intended) it's because we as a nation now like kicking ourselves up the arse. No other country does this, only us.
Chrisgr31 said:
So I assume that whatever it was that flew over my office in Shaftesbury Avenue about 10 minutes was connected with this? Didnt have time to look out the window but whatever it was, was low and fast.
Missed the jets but saw the Lanc over our office on Piccadilly. Poppy drop was brilliant.Simpo Two said:
More directly, how many US lives it saved by not having to invade mainland Japan. That was their main aim - and the Japanese had proven they would fight to the death rather than surrender. So yes, if you have a new wonder weapon, you get on and use it.
To return briefly to why Bomber Command get all the flak (no pun intended) it's because we as a nation now like kicking ourselves up the arse. No other country does this, only us.
That was the thing. I read somewhere that US calculations had the total number of casualties (Allied and Japanese combined) for an invasion of the Japanese mainland at upwards of a million. It's a terrible bit of maths to do, but it had to be the right decision. To return briefly to why Bomber Command get all the flak (no pun intended) it's because we as a nation now like kicking ourselves up the arse. No other country does this, only us.
Awful things happen in war, but that's the nature of war. Don't celebrate the killing, but remember the dead.
ClaphamGT3 said:
The issue here is that the fact that area bombing would be morally and - in probability - legally unacceptable now
That fact that we still have an active and very effective nuclear component in our armed forces suggests otherwise. It's unacceptable for just as long as we can afford for it to be so. 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff