Bomber Boys

[Gene Vincent]

Bedazzled said:

Yes I absolutely agree. My comment related to this, which I felt implied I was being disrespectful to their legacy; certainly not my intention and nobody is questioning their bravery.

Gene Vincent said:

Not all heroes, it seems, are given their due respect.

Heroism and Heroic Endeavour are two separate but related entities, heroism is an individuals choice, an Heroic Endeavour such as the Bomber raids is a collective act of heroism.

Both are to be lionised as 'heroes' in my books.

You need look no further back than to WW1 where many men were cut down on their first day of battle just a few feet of or even still within their trench, no-one [sane] would doubt that such men were heroes, they were on an heroic endeavour [even if it was a blind one] and I will happily call every single soldier in WW1 a hero and decry anyone who didn't. That also applies to all those that fell apart, deserted after battle, on both sides, human madness or stupidity or eventual blind cruelty hides nothing of the heroism displayed.

Just my opinion, no offence meant or sensibility trodden on purposefully.

[RichB]

Bedazzled said:

… I think estimates of military casualties were grossly exaggerated to justify what we did…

…We killed a quarter of a million helpless civilians to shorten the war by a few weeks and test a new super-weapon…

As for bomber command's tactics, brave though the air-crews were, bombing civilians is not heroic by anyone's standards.

You’re bordering on being offensive now. The bomber crews who flew those missions did so in order that you are free to criticise them on an internet forum. I don’t know how old you are but I am guessing quite young and certainly without any concept of life without wall to wall news on TV, Internet and your iPhone.

With this thread in mind I spoke to my mum yesterday, who is 92, lived in London and was a plotter during the war. She said the public had no way of knowing exactly how close Germany was to surrendering because news was days or even weeks old when you heard it. You won’t remember Pathe News, but it was not exactly live from the front!

To suggest the ongoing bombing campaign was unnecessary is, dare I say it, easy for you from your warm comfortable armchair but I suggest you’d have had the completely obverse opinion had you’d been living in London in 1945.

Regarding the V2 rockets, she said they were terrifying because of the size of them but the V1s were probably more threatening because you heard the drone of the motor shut off and then just waited to find out if you’d be the one’s to be blown to pieces. On that point there was no way of knowing if those V2 rockets had chemical or nuclear warheads, we knew Germany were working on stuff but certainly didn’t know what.

[Eric Mc]

Bedazzled said:

Eric Mc said:

Your arguments are as old as the Bombing Offensive itself.

That's another way of saying they knew it was wrong at the time

Of course it doesn't. It means that in a democracy people are freely allowed to dispute and debate the decisions of their leaders. Nothing more and nothing less. And it was what those lads were risking their necks for.

[Simpo Two]

Bedazzled said:

but you can't quote people living in London during the blitz, or US marines fighting the Japanese, to justify concepts like 'they had it coming'.

But you can't take decisions and views out of their time (ie context), because they are only valid in that time. At any given time you make decisions you feel are right given the information you have to hand at that time. History can show that some of your information was wrong, or that you did not know other relevant information.

So the schism is in trying to overlay your 2012 views with their 1939-45 views. Different people, different time. You're both right but they can't be reconciled.

[Eric Mc]

Bedazzled said:

RichB said:

<snip>

Perhaps you could reread my comments more carefully, I haven't criticised the bombing crews or people in the war who earned the right to say what they like; but you can't quote people living in London during the blitz, or US marines fighting the Japanese, to justify concepts like 'they had it coming'. People on both sides are programmed to hate the enemy, otherwise they wouldn't contemplate killing each other; it takes a generation (or an open mind) to move on from that.

Christ, I point out a few allied decisions we could ponder and the Daily Mail types furiously waving their little Union Jacks throw all their toys out of the pram.

How dare you. You are becoming tiresome now.

I am now thorougly fed up with your imbecilic categorisation of both the crews of these aircraft, those who directed their missions and those who may think that what they did was worthwhile.

I am not and never have been a reader of the Daily Mail and cannot stand its xenphobic standpoint on most issues.

BUT, it was PRECISELY because of what the Bomber Boys did that we are in a position today where we can discuss and debate these issues openly. God knows what the internet era would have been like if Nazi ideology had held sway throughout Europe.

Plesase disappear for a while and read some history.

[.Adam.]

Just got around to seeing this, really enjoyed it, am now sitting looking through my Grandfathers flying log book from WW2, when he was a rear gunner in a Halifax. He very rarely talked about the war, and I guess after seeing this programme I can see why.

Anyone know the best place to do research to find out more information about the individual squadrons?

[Eric Mc]

The National Archives at Kew for original research.

There are tons of books avialble on the exploits of Bomber Command and the crews who flew the aircraft.

[jmorgan]

Bedazzled said:

There's an interesting assessment here.

Japan was blockaded and on its knees, and by then Russia had poured a million troops into the conflict, they would not surrender easily had the war continued but I think estimates of military casualties were grossly exaggerated to justify what we did. We killed a quarter of a million helpless civilians to shorten the war by a few weeks and test a new super-weapon; the second bomb was dropped before the Japanese even had time to comprehend the devastation from the first.

As for bomber command's tactics, brave though the air-crews were, bombing civilians is not heroic by anyone's standards.

Russia was on a land grab, it added to the rush to end it, they did not make a move until the bombs happened. Japan was belligerent to the end and there was an attempted coup to keep fighting.

Part (a big part)of the problem was the way Japan conducted the war. They fought to the end in the majority of cases. The made the US fight for every inch of land. The initial banzai attacks that were mown down changed to another form of defence that was murder for the marines and army. They would even wound to shoot the medics or stretcher bearers that came to help. There was no quarter in most cases, on both sides. Over 70,000 Japanese died on Okinawa. That is not counting the civilians that had the unfortunate luck to get in the way or were pressed buy the Japanese military. The fight across the Pacific islands gave a taste of what was to come in the invasion of the main land. And this is not counting the kamikaze or mainland civilians pressed into service. The projected casualties were high and with no indication of surrender on the cards, the projected deaths for a blockade were also high. Japan wanted to get the US to give up and get favourable surrender terms. This included keeping all their gains, or rather the gains they had rampaged across with extreme brutality. The bombs were just a means to an end for the allies.

[Simpo Two]

Yip. Problem is that he's judging the Japanese by what he would do. 'We're on our knees and blockaded, let's give up'. Nope. The Japanese didn't think like that. As fanatical as today's muslim extremists, but much smarter and much more organised. To be captured alive was the ultimate disgrace, so they fought until they were killed. Mad to us (then as now) but true.

[RichB]

Bedazzled said:

RichB said:

<snip>

<offensive stuff>

I understood your comments perfectly thank you.
I don't read the Daily Mail.
Leave out the "biglaugh" smiley, you're not funny.

[pacman1]

Probably worth pointing out, mainly to Bedazzled, countries at war may try their best to avoid civilian casualities, but when faced with defeat or further huge numbers of combatants dying,

especially after five years of war (as with WW2), civilians will get hit if that is what it takes.

Of course today, we like to call it collateral damage, sounds a little more detached, eh?


To my mind, if a country is at war, then that includes all of its citizens, and hence the evolution of terrorism as a tactic we see so often today.

Edited by pacman1 on Sunday 12th February 21:03

[pacman1]

Bedazzled said:

..Harris' tactics which started the discussion in the first place.

The man was a soldier of war. In war you are out to win. It was said in the documentary that six more Dresden style bombing raidss would have ended the war with Germany. He knew that.

Thanks to the courage and commitment of men such as Harris, we aren't having this discussion in German.

[Crafty_]

Bedazzled would of liked Kingsley Wood methinks.

[marcosgt]

I hadn't watched this - For some reason I thought it would be horribly jingoistic, but I was in on my own one evening so gave it a go.

I thought it struck an absolutely perfect tone between presenting the horrors experienced by and heroism of the bomber crews (and even a German night fighter crew!) and putting the bombing campaign into a context that both considered the prevalent view at the time and that afforded by hindsight.

Carpet (or area) bombing was a terrible thing (used by both sides) aimed at killing people to stop war production.

Trouble is, war (not these stupid political campaigns run today, but ones where whole countries risk being over-run by totalitarian regimes) is a horrible thing and terrible things happened.

Watching this I realised how unfairly the bomber crews, just doing their job and try to hit back at the Germans for their bombing of the UK and everything they'd done earlier in Europe, had been treated.

British families in the UK were wiped out by German bombing raids, real war didn't afford the luxury of turning the other cheek or 'playing by the rules'.

The Nazi regime DID change the rules of warfare (as early as the Spanish Civil War) and the German people paid the price, but Germany fell under the spell of the Nazis, no-one forced them to and their own jingoistic, nationalistic pride was the cause of all the misfortune that befell them, not British or American airmen.

A very good programme that certainly made me think.

M

[vonuber]

pacman1 said:

The man was a soldier of war. In war you are out to win. It was said in the documentary that six more Dresden style bombing raids might have caused even more large scale damage on Germany. He knew that and carried on to prove his point that bombers alone could win the war.

Thanks to the courage and commitment of men such as Harris, we aren't having this discussion in Russian.

EFA

[williamp]

Thank God. Another thread almost ruined. Can we get back in track now? (or should that be, back on course...)

I was surprised there was as much colour footage of the RAF as tbey showed. I know there is loads of colour footage of the USAAF, but it was good to see the RAF in colour.

[Simpo Two]

marcosgt said:

The Nazi regime DID change the rules of warfare (as early as the Spanish Civil War) and the German people paid the price, but Germany fell under the spell of the Nazis, no-one forced them to and their own jingoistic, nationalistic pride was the cause of all the misfortune that befell them

All traceable to the Treaty of Versailles set out by the Allies after WW1... the average German hated it and felt humiliated by it. Hitler used this to unite the nation and ended up conquering the country that had defeated it in 1918.

Can't help thinking how different the 20th century - and the world now - would be if Kaiser Bill hadn't been so determined to take on his relatives.

williamp said:

Thank God. Another thread almost ruined. Can we get back in track now? (or should that be, back on course...)

Sorry

[Eric Mc]

williamp said:

Thank God. Another thread almost ruined. Can we get back in track now? (or should that be, back on course...)

I was surprised there was as much colour footage of the RAF as tbey showed. I know there is loads of colour footage of the USAAF, but it was good to see the RAF in colour.

The colour film is almost all down to one man, a chap called Air Commodore Iliffe Cozens who shot what is thought to be unique 16mm colour footage of WW2 Bomber Command operations. It was first shown on TV (BBC, of course) in 1979 (having been kept secret under the 35 year rule until that time. I still have the original Radio Times covering the week it was first shown.

[jmorgan]

Still not seen it. iplayer crashes for me.

Utmost respect either way. I was reading that quite a few reporters flew on raids..

[croyde]

jmorgan said:

Still not seen it. iplayer crashes for me.

Utmost respect either way. I was reading that quite a few reporters flew on raids..

In response to the thread about the people at home not knowing what was going on, this is so true.

Now every soldier, tank, fighter plane and even missile has a TV camera whilst back at the D Day landings one famous newsman went over with the soldiers and hit the beach amid a hail of gun fire took pictures on one roll of film then managed to get back into a boat returning to England then got the train from Dover to London.

He handed the film to a technician who developed the negative but got so excited at the thought of the footage he put the negative dryer on too high and they all got burnt apart from 2 blurry pics.

Bit different from using your iPhone.

You can watch Dad's Army and think what an easy life but back then these guys really thought that they would be facing battle hardened Nazis at any moment.