Bomber Command fliers in their own words
Discussion
"We were too young to realise what we were doing. We thought we were enjoying ourselves but we were killing people in our attempt to enjoy ourselves," he says.
That seems a bizarre quote. Aircrew were hardly out on a jolly and neither would they, had they been older, have thought 'Let's stay at home'.
I'd like to see the apologists who keep trotting out the tired and now rather boring Dresden story try to conduct an all-out war and see how they get on.
That seems a bizarre quote. Aircrew were hardly out on a jolly and neither would they, had they been older, have thought 'Let's stay at home'.
I'd like to see the apologists who keep trotting out the tired and now rather boring Dresden story try to conduct an all-out war and see how they get on.
Simpo Two said:
"We were too young to realise what we were doing. We thought we were enjoying ourselves but we were killing people in our attempt to enjoy ourselves," he says.
That was a very strange quote. I wondered if it had somehow been taken out of context by the way it had been edited, but...seems fairly explicit.dr_gn said:
Simpo Two said:
"We were too young to realise what we were doing. We thought we were enjoying ourselves but we were killing people in our attempt to enjoy ourselves," he says.
That was a very strange quote. I wondered if it had somehow been taken out of context by the way it had been edited, but...seems fairly explicit.Very much so. After a few successful missions the reality of their true odds of survival began to sink in and many became fatalistic.
I have no doubt the vast bulk gave very liitle thought for the plight of those on the ground. Why should they have? There was a war on and they felt they were "hiting back" in response to what the Germans had done to London, Coventry, Bristol etc.
It was only after the war that the true extent of the utter devasrtaion that the CONBINED Bomber Offensive caused (don't forget the USAAF were as big a player in this too).
I have no doubt the vast bulk gave very liitle thought for the plight of those on the ground. Why should they have? There was a war on and they felt they were "hiting back" in response to what the Germans had done to London, Coventry, Bristol etc.
It was only after the war that the true extent of the utter devasrtaion that the CONBINED Bomber Offensive caused (don't forget the USAAF were as big a player in this too).
It does contrast somewhat with the more usual quote (ie unprompted by a young BBC person) of 'If anyone tells you he wasn't scared he was a bloody liar'.
I think the way these veterans are obviously feeling pressured to change their story/views/opinions to please modern PC types is disgraceful.
'Killing innocent women and children is wrong isn't it Mr Veteran, yes or no?' etc.
Plus, if in war you 'give thought to the other guy' you're either going to lose, or you're a psychopath.
I think the way these veterans are obviously feeling pressured to change their story/views/opinions to please modern PC types is disgraceful.
'Killing innocent women and children is wrong isn't it Mr Veteran, yes or no?' etc.
Plus, if in war you 'give thought to the other guy' you're either going to lose, or you're a psychopath.
Simpo Two said:
I'd like to see the apologists who keep trotting out the tired and now rather boring Dresden story try to conduct an all-out war and see how they get on.
it must be dreadful for you, having to listen to that tired and boring stuff about people getting killed, rather like those dull old holocaust tales and that boring stuff about the PoW camps in the Far Eastthe point is, obviously, that 'all out war' against civilians is a war crime, by our own definitions
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
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
TEKNOPUG said:
dr_gn said:
Simpo Two said:
"We were too young to realise what we were doing. We thought we were enjoying ourselves but we were killing people in our attempt to enjoy ourselves," he says.
That was a very strange quote. I wondered if it had somehow been taken out of context by the way it had been edited, but...seems fairly explicit.Simpo Two said:
What would you have done in 1943-4 to win the war Hugo? You obviously have better answers than all the Allied commanders.
And would you suggest that all surviving bomber crew are imprisioned for war crimes? I think you must.
I didn't invent the definitions of war crimesAnd would you suggest that all surviving bomber crew are imprisioned for war crimes? I think you must.
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 tied up forces and resources of the Axis, and possibly reduced the efficiency of the workforce (but may well have been counter-productive in this respect)
by 1945 though, it's hard to see what destroying cities like Dresden or Würzburg really achieved
Some views do vary.
I have a Grandmother who cannot listen to the German national anthem - i.e if it comes on during the F1 she has to turn over, it and what it stands for (as far as she is concerned) terrifies her.
When speaking to my Grandfather who was a flt engineer in Bomber Command, I mentioned Coventry and Dresden - i.e were they tit for tat & comparable, the reply was...
'Not really, we did a much better job on Dresden'.
Both very strong, unwavering views.
I have a Grandmother who cannot listen to the German national anthem - i.e if it comes on during the F1 she has to turn over, it and what it stands for (as far as she is concerned) terrifies her.
When speaking to my Grandfather who was a flt engineer in Bomber Command, I mentioned Coventry and Dresden - i.e were they tit for tat & comparable, the reply was...
'Not really, we did a much better job on Dresden'.
Both very strong, unwavering views.
Hugo a Gogo said:
by 1945 though, it's hard to see what destroying cities like Dresden or Würzburg really achieved
Tactically, little. Strategically, it demonstrated to the Soviets what we were capable of.It's easier in hindsight to analyse what was actually achieved but of little value. What is important is how the decision was made, based on what evidence and what was the desired effect. It's easy to argue that a lot of activities during the war actually achieved little (this is indeed the case and can be verified) but harder to argue that their failure (for want of a better word) was foreseeable at the time.
I don't believe that the Dresden raids were planned and carried out in any different fashion to those of Cologne, Essen, Berlin or any other city. In fact, Dresden received far less tonnage of bombs than the other major cities. That they were so devastating was less a case of design than (ill)fortune and it could never have been known prior to the attack exactly how much the population had been swelled by refugees, although this would have probably mattered little to the overall decision.
Dresden should not be singled-out as a demonstration of the evil of civilian bombing, any more than Guernica, Coventry, Berlin or Tokyo should.
I doubt if the German "terrorfliegers" who did this to my old road were too upset about it
The two kids are my second cousin Jim and me
I lived in the building behind us which has its "back to back" companion missing (on the right) There are four homes in that courtyard.
Where we are seen playing should have had about sixty other houses in rows across the hillside
'cos the war had been over for five years or so it was deemed safe for us to play where people were blown to pieces
War is hard, Germans spent much of it trying to kill my family in homes and workplaces all over Birmingham
They "bombed our chipshop" they bombed most of us's bloody chipshops. They started the war, I will not allow my heart to bleed over it
Try not to lets yours bleed over my sweater, it's new
The two kids are my second cousin Jim and me
I lived in the building behind us which has its "back to back" companion missing (on the right) There are four homes in that courtyard.
Where we are seen playing should have had about sixty other houses in rows across the hillside
'cos the war had been over for five years or so it was deemed safe for us to play where people were blown to pieces
War is hard, Germans spent much of it trying to kill my family in homes and workplaces all over Birmingham
They "bombed our chipshop" they bombed most of us's bloody chipshops. They started the war, I will not allow my heart to bleed over it
Try not to lets yours bleed over my sweater, it's new
king 'them and us' bNo one said it was "right".
No one EVER says it was right.
But at the time it was perhaps the only strategy that could have been adopted by the Allies in Europe until D-Day at least. After D-Day, the campaign was more questionable but by then it had developed a momentum all its own.
I do notice that there is very liitle opprobrium allocated to the as intensive bombing campaigns of the US 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces - which were every bit as devastating as Bomber Command's.
Why do Brits single themselves out for such intense self flagellation. They seem to have this wish to hate themselves.
No one EVER says it was right.
But at the time it was perhaps the only strategy that could have been adopted by the Allies in Europe until D-Day at least. After D-Day, the campaign was more questionable but by then it had developed a momentum all its own.
I do notice that there is very liitle opprobrium allocated to the as intensive bombing campaigns of the US 8th, 9th and 15th Air Forces - which were every bit as devastating as Bomber Command's.
Why do Brits single themselves out for such intense self flagellation. They seem to have this wish to hate themselves.
Isn't the point really that these guys didn't decide to go and bomb civilians - they were told to do it, and they did it well: a terrifying, dangerous, nasty job that probably very few commentators today could ever comprehend.
IMO, these guys should have been recognised decades ago, not necessarily for what they were ordered to do in many cases, but what they actually did in terms of flying an aircraft over hostile territory in the face of huge adversity.
IMO, these guys should have been recognised decades ago, not necessarily for what they were ordered to do in many cases, but what they actually did in terms of flying an aircraft over hostile territory in the face of huge adversity.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff