It was common practice that when reporting V1 & V2 landing sites to add a few miles on, so it one landed in Catford, it would be reported as landing in North London. The reason for this is because the Germans would think that they had over fueled the weapons and reduce the amount in the next ones, thus making them fall short on London which accounted for the number of hits in Kent. The same was also done for directions too
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]Tom, would certainly be interested later in the season maybe lining up a walk on a Saturday morning / lunchtime, then we all go for a pint before the match. Can't do Sundays
Not allowed. (
If a Saturday morning walk is favourite, perhaps we can organise something for a 10/10.30 meet in Blackheath one Saturday before a match and finish up in Greenwich for about 12.30/1pm at the Richard I/Greenwich Union? If a non matchday is preferred, then I'm sure we can sort something out.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The TV channel "Yesterday" is running a series of programmes under the heading "Spirit of 1940", last night's was about the first night of the blitz. Mostly the East End was targetted, but several bombs fell short and hit Lewisam and that area.
One of the reasons why SE London and North Kent received a disproportioate amount of V1 and V2 rockets was a consequence of British propaganda. The rockets were aimed at central London but in news broadcasts the targets were reported as hitting locations in north London and the northern Home Counties. The Nazi's thinking that they had the range wrong re-calibrated the rockets for about 20 miles or so less and ended up hitting south east London and Kent instead.
I think swanscombe got a fairly large number of hits during the blitz - I did some research when writing a short book for the closure of the local infants school. The first V1 flying bomb in england hit Swanscombe.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. The first V-1 flying bomb in England landed on Grove Road railway bridge in Bow on 13th June 1944 - there is a Blue Plaque there to mark this event. The first V-2 rocket landed in Staveley Road, Chiswick on 8th September 1944. The last V-2 did fall nearby - in Court Road, Orpington on 27th March 1945 - barely 6 weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]TCE, don't know about b/w pics. Other than in books I'd guess that Getty or one of the photo agencies might sell them but would be expensive I would have thought.
Back to DVDs -If you are into this sort of thing search out any of the Humphrey Jennings films. Described as "the cinematic poet laureate of Britain at War".
Also "It Happened Here" a stark and not at all sentimental 1964 film of the German Occupation of England.
Does any one know of any books that focus on Woolwich/south London in the blitz? So often the area seems to get overlooked or lumped in with the "east End".
Henry - the Greenwich Heritage Centre at the Woolwich Arsenal have got a large selection of local photographs showing Blitz damage - they are quite happy for the likes of us to take digital photographs of them for private use. If being used for commercial purposes, then they are a little more cautious.
As far as a book focusing on SE London is concerned, there is an out of print book called 'Red Alert' by Lewis Blake which concentrates solely on our part of London. It is available online at places like Abe Books (part of Amazon) from time to time but again, the Heritage Centre does have a copy available for inspection.
There will be a book being published next month co-authored by Addicks fan Clive Harris on which I have also worked on called 'A Guide to Wartime London' which features a walk in Blackheath/Greenwich similar to the one that I do. It's being published by Pen & Sword and will be around the £12 mark.
I wonder if a lot of the south london bombs were down to the Germans turning back early because they didn't fancy flying over the more well defended central london. They couldn't return home with any bombs left, and they would fly faster with a lighter payload.
[cite]Posted By: HarryHutchens[/cite]I wonder if a lot of the south london bombs were down to the Germans turning back early because they didn't fancy flying over the more well defended central london. They couldn't return home with any bombs left, and they would fly faster with a lighter payload.
Possibly but don't forget that there was a lot of industry in the area then. On 7th September 1940, which started as a daylight raid, two of the specific targets were Woolwich Arsenal and the Surrey Docks. The bomb aiming techniques in those days were somewhat haphazard - basically unload your incendiaries over the target, hope they were on the money and then the next wave of bombers would come along and aim at the fires. Once they switched solely to night bombing, then it was far more indiscriminate - just unload your bombs over London, which let's face it was (and is) a pretty big target.
Sorry to have been hogging the last few replies but I do make a living out of this particular subject so feel qualified to get involved!
Please hog away, it's really interesting. Want to ask, didn't Hitler also shift what had hitherto been a military position, from the bombing of industrial and utility targets to one of civilian bombing at night? Guided in by the Thames reflecting moonlight, they were pretty sure to hit densely populated areas and had more chance of avoiding anti craft guns at night? There was presumably no need to cross the river to maximise civilian casualties.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Please hog away, it's really interesting. Want to ask, didn't Hitler also shift what had hitherto been a military position, from the bombing of industrial and utility targets to one of civilian bombing at night? Guided in by the Thames reflecting moonlight, they were pretty sure to hit densely populated areas and had more chance of avoiding anti craft guns at night? There was presumably no need to cross the river to maximise civilian casualties.
Absolutely correct yes. They had originally been bombing military targets, mainly the RAF's airfields with a view to putting them out of action and giving the Germans air supremacy as a prelude to an invasion planned for September 1940. However, on 25th August a flight of Luftwaffe bombers got hopelessly lost due to a navigational error and instead of dumping their bombs over open countryside as they thought, actually dropped them on the City of London. As a retaliation, Churchill ordered a raid on Berlin and although the damage caused by this raid was minimal, the loss of face in Germany was enormous. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Goering had boasted that 'no enemy aircraft shall fly over Reich territory' and as a result Hitler ordered the bombing attacks switched to London.
Although a lot of death and destruction was caused by this, it ironically meant that the British would win the Battle of Britain as it gave the RAF a chance to rebuild and repair it's airfields, make good its losses and ensure that any attempted seabourne invasion would not be viable.
As to finding London, as you say it was just a case of following the Thames. The two easiest things to follow from the air without the aid of radar are waterways (rivers, canals etc) and railway lines - all of which are in abundance to the south and east of London.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The TV channel "Yesterday" is running a series of programmes under the heading "Spirit of 1940", last night's was about the first night of the blitz. Mostly the East End was targetted, but several bombs fell short and hit Lewisam and that area.
One of the reasons why SE London and North Kent received a disproportioate amount of V1 and V2 rockets was a consequence of British propaganda. The rockets were aimed at central London but in news broadcasts the targets were reported as hitting locations in north London and the northern Home Counties. The Nazi's thinking that they had the range wrong re-calibrated the rockets for about 20 miles or so less and ended up hitting south east London and Kent instead.
I think swanscombe got a fairly large number of hits during the blitz - I did some research when writing a short book for the closure of the local infants school. The first V1 flying bomb in england hit Swanscombe.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. The first V-1 flying bomb in England landed on Grove Road railway bridge in Bow on 13th June 1944 - there is a Blue Plaque there to mark this event. The first V-2 rocket landed in Staveley Road, Chiswick on 8th September 1944. The last V-2 did fall nearby - in Court Road, Orpington on 27th March 1945 - barely 6 weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
I beg to differ. I think (I am trying to find the information I had - a lot of it was in extracts from the school diary) that the one you reference is the first one in London. The hit in Swanscombe was on the same day, 13th June, and was presumably part of the same batch of 10 that were launched that morning (including the one in Bow that you mention). I think the swanscombe hit was about 20 minutes earlier than the one in Bow, fortunately there were no casualties.
Thank you all for your input, especially Tom and Jorge.
My parents lived in Red lion Lane and Constitution Rise (Hill) respectively. Neither lived far from The Eagle pub which suffered a direct hit with tragic loss of life. My grandmother was a nurse and tried to help. I (and my children) could easily not be here had the bomb landed a few yards either way.
[quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]In reprisal Churchill sent a squadron of Stirling bombers (The Lancaster was not flying then) and bombed Berlin. .............
I would be up for the walk, wether it be a Saturday or Sunday.
Tom kindly got me invited to a commerative event at Invicta school later this year, which my grandfather was involved with.
I think this local history is critically important to be preserved and handed down for future generations, as I believe that the chararacter of the local area was so shaped by the events of the war, and the consequences that resulted in that. Ordinary folk made immense contributions to forge the country we now live in, especially based on the two world wars. And although the first world war may have been a distant event for many families, the second world war effected every family during the war and for years after!, and thank god they did to enjoy the freedom we enjoy in this country.
We found this in our loft when we moved in along with the remnants of a gas mask and a box of 10 weights cigarettes.
It now hangs framed in our living room, I'm not sure the guy at 106 knows that if the "s*** hits the fan" we're all round his place for the night ; )
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The TV channel "Yesterday" is running a series of programmes under the heading "Spirit of 1940", last night's was about the first night of the blitz. Mostly the East End was targetted, but several bombs fell short and hit Lewisam and that area.
One of the reasons why SE London and North Kent received a disproportioate amount of V1 and V2 rockets was a consequence of British propaganda. The rockets were aimed at central London but in news broadcasts the targets were reported as hitting locations in north London and the northern Home Counties. The Nazi's thinking that they had the range wrong re-calibrated the rockets for about 20 miles or so less and ended up hitting south east London and Kent instead.
I think swanscombe got a fairly large number of hits during the blitz - I did some research when writing a short book for the closure of the local infants school. The first V1 flying bomb in england hit Swanscombe.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. The first V-1 flying bomb in England landed on Grove Road railway bridge in Bow on 13th June 1944 - there is a Blue Plaque there to mark this event. The first V-2 rocket landed in Staveley Road, Chiswick on 8th September 1944. The last V-2 did fall nearby - in Court Road, Orpington on 27th March 1945 - barely 6 weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
I beg to differ. I think (I am trying to find the information I had - a lot of it was in extracts from the school diary) that the one you reference is the first one in London. The hit in Swanscombe was on the same day, 13th June, and was presumably part of the same batch of 10 that were launched that morning (including the one in Bow that you mention). I think the swanscombe hit was about 20 minutes earlier than the one in Bow, fortunately there were no casualties.
This is interesting information and is contrary to several published works on the subject. I'd be interested to see any of the info you have if you're in a position to share it as I'd be happy to make this correction on our website. The one in Bow sadly killed 6 people (I think) and injured several others. The early incident logs for these weapons describe them as P.A.C. (Pilotless Aircraft) before settling on the more usually known FLY which basically means "Fly(ing) Bomb" - the V-2s are always described in the logs as "LRR" standing for Long Range Rocket.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Thanks for the heads up on the books Tom, keep the info coming too.
I and Henry Jnr would be up for that walk (although I never drink beer so would have to miss that bit : - ) )
Also the German's were quite happy to bomb civilians in cities when it suited them.
They had already terror bombed Warsaw long before the London Blitz started and had been practising City bombing since the Spanish Civil war in 1936-9.
The bombing of civilian areas is such an emotive and troubling subject, isn't it?
I mean, when I read about what we did to Dresden - when the war was all but won anyway - I feel pretty ashamed about us burning 20,000 people alive, many of whom were women and children who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazis.
On the flip side, of course, the Nazis showed no hesitancy whatsoever about bombing the hell out of London - at that time one of the most densely populated cities on the planet - so why the hell should the Germans not get a taste of their own medicine?
It is a question that leaves me genuinely conflicted given the level of human suffering involved, especially amongst the non-combatants, on both sides.
I have been reading about how Bomber Harris got ostracised post WWII by "the establishment" and went off to South Africa for a number of years, it was only the personal intervention of Churchill, with the offer of the Baronecy of somewhere, that he came back to the UK.
Makes you think that the powers that be were quite happy for Harris to do their dirty work for them during the war but then went out of their way to distance themselves from him once the war was over.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Thanks for the heads up on the books Tom, keep the info coming too.
I and Henry Jnr would be up for that walk (although I never drink beer so would have to miss that bit : - ) )
Also the German's were quite happy to bomb civilians in cities when it suited them.
They had already terror bombed Warsaw long before the London Blitz started and had been practising City bombing since the Spanish Civil war in 1936-9.
The bombing of civilian areas is such an emotive and troubling subject, isn't it?
I mean, when I read about what we did to Dresden - when the war was all but won anyway - I feel pretty ashamed about us burning 20,000 people alive, many of whom were women and children who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazis.
On the flip side, of course, the Nazis showed no hesitancy whatsoever about bombing the hell out of London - at that time one of the most densely populated cities on the planet - so why the hell should the Germans not get a taste of their own medicine?
It is a question that leaves me genuinely conflicted given the level of human suffering involved, especially amongst the non-combatants, on both sides.
I have been reading about how Bomber Harris got ostracised post WWII by "the establishment" and went off to South Africa for a number of years, it was only the personal intervention of Churchill, with the offer of the Baronecy of somewhere, that he came back to the UK.
Makes you think that the powers that be were quite happy for Harris to do their dirty work for them during the war but then went out of their way to distance themselves from him once the war was over.
Plus ca change, as the French would say.
Churchill was not above distancing himself from Harris either. There are suggestions that he was as keen as the next man for the Dresden raid to go ahead to support the Russian advance - but at the end of the war during his victory speech he never mentioned (or thanked) Bomber Command once, despite them being the only truly offensive force during the middle years of the war and losing more than 50% of their aircrew.
Harris was no angel: he pursued strategic area bombing far too long, but at least he was honest about the terror aspect and the 'dehousing' effect and had warned the Air Ministry that they should be upfront about the strategic aims of the campaign with the British public otherwise it would come back to bite them after the war when people's morals had shifted.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Thanks for the heads up on the books Tom, keep the info coming too.
I and Henry Jnr would be up for that walk (although I never drink beer so would have to miss that bit : - ) )
Also the German's were quite happy to bomb civilians in cities when it suited them.
They had already terror bombed Warsaw long before the London Blitz started and had been practising City bombing since the Spanish Civil war in 1936-9.
The bombing of civilian areas is such an emotive and troubling subject, isn't it?
I mean, when I read about what we did to Dresden - when the war was all but won anyway - I feel pretty ashamed about us burning 20,000 people alive, many of whom were women and children who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazis.
On the flip side, of course, the Nazis showed no hesitancy whatsoever about bombing the hell out of London - at that time one of the most densely populated cities on the planet - so why the hell should the Germans not get a taste of their own medicine?
It is a question that leaves me genuinely conflicted given the level of human suffering involved, especially amongst the non-combatants, on both sides.
I have been reading about how Bomber Harris got ostracised post WWII by "the establishment" and went off to South Africa for a number of years, it was only the personal intervention of Churchill, with the offer of the Baronecy of somewhere, that he came back to the UK.
Makes you think that the powers that be were quite happy for Harris to do their dirty work for them during the war but then went out of their way to distance themselves from him once the war was over.
Plus ca change, as the French would say.
Churchill was not above distancing himself from Harris either. There are suggestions that he was as keen as the next man for the Dresden raid to go ahead to support the Russian advance - but at the end of the war during his victory speech he never mentioned (or thanked) Bomber Command once, despite them being the only truly offensive force during the middle years of the war and losing more than 50% of their aircrew.
Harris was no angel: he pursued strategic area bombing far too long, but at least he was honest about the terror aspect and the 'dehousing' effect and had warned the Air Ministry that they should be upfront about the strategic aims of the campaign with the British public otherwise it would come back to bite them after the war when people's morals had shifted.
I study military history, specifically WW2, there are some good balanced opinions here but it gets my back up when over 60 years later people are still criticising Harris for his actions. Its easy to criticise 60+ years later, this was a time of World War, a war like WW2 will never happen again (thanks god). Harris was put in position and instructed by the government to commit the RAF to all the major bombing missions, including Hamburg and Dresden, both these citys, with most of the buildings made from wood, were targeted by the war office, they even planned which bombs, in which order to use, HE (high explosive) first to blow the houses and buildings apart and Incendiary bombs to start the fires. Lets not forget that the West was under tremendous pressure from Stalin to open up a new front, and to retain Russia as an allie we had to be seen to be fighting, forget the Yanks, without the Russians the allies would not have won WW2. Harris said (about the Germans) 'They have sown the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind'. Harris is and should be considered a hero for overseeing the missions of Bomber Command.
[cite]Posted By: bibble[/cite]
I study military history, specifically WW2, there are some good balanced opinions here but it gets my back up when over 60 years later people are still criticising Harris for his actions. Its easy to criticise 60+ years later, this was a time of World War, a war like WW2 will never happen again (thanks god). Harris was put in position and instructed by the government to commit the RAF to all the major bombing missions, including Hamburg and Dresden, both these citys, with most of the buildings made from wood, were targeted by the war office, they even planned which bombs, in which order to use, HE (high explosive) first to blow the houses and buildings apart and Incendiary bombs to start the fires. Lets not forget that the West was under tremendous pressure from Stalin to open up a new front, and to retain Russia as an allie we had to be seen to be fighting, forget the Yanks, without the Russians the allies would not have won WW2. Harris said (about the Germans) 'They have sown the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind'. Harris is and should be considered a hero for overseeing the missions of Bomber Command.
bibble - I agree, Harris did far more to help win the war than, say, Monty but is reviled as a monster. With hindsight (always useful when you know the outcome of a conflict), I still feel that tactical bombing would have been more effective during the last 6 months of the war, but no-one can deny that the man took a shallow ineffective force in early 1942 and developed a ruthless war machine that paved the way for ultimate allied victory mainly through sheer willpower and bloody-mindedness
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]In War bad things happen and people die unfortunately thats what happens
None of it right in retrospect
but at the time ask those who's family members were dying and their homes across our great capital burning.
If they thought the revenge bombings were correct at the time prob yes now i doubt it.
but those who made the decisions have had to live with them their whole lives.
IMO Harris did what needed to be done
Both my parents were in London during the war (my father was a fire spotter and latter dug up those unexploded bombs (UXBS) as part of 33 Royal Enginner bomb Disposal) and they both took then and take now the view of "Give them a taste of what they gave us"
At the time Dresden was only 60 miles from the front, was a major rail junction and centre for production of military equipment. It was a legitimate target
It is terrible that 25k (not the 250k the Nazi's) died in that city but war is terrible and terrible things happen. And it wasn't just the RAF, the USAAF also bombed the city.
Very good book on it "Dresden, Tuesday 13 February 1945" buy Anthony Taylor.
Harris was badly treated and was the only head of service not to be made a lord.
This is a truly fascinating thread.... one that touches me directly because my mother's family had their house destroyed and their friends killed.
But also lets not forget it wasn't just London Docklands that were ravaged .......elsewhere in the UK, the heart of entire cities were devastated, Swansea, Coventry, Plymouth and many others.
Plymouth, for example ..... in the square mile of the city centre, there wasn't one building left standing.
That's equivalent to the entire City of London being razed to the ground.
My brother in law is a military historian, and he shares the view expressed by Henry and North London.
Being an armchair soldier in hindsight is a lot easier than the real thing. This was a world war, not a cod war, and was fought in a time when perhaps people took duty and service blindly without question!. 'For king and country'
I for one would not want to judge Harris on a 'moral' issue like this, he seems to be the fall guy here. 'Collective responsability' means that it was not just Harris who sanctioned this.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]My brother in law is a military historian, and he shares the view expressed by Henry and North London.
Being an armchair soldier in hindsight is a lot easier than the real thing. This was a world war, not a cod war, and was fought in a time when perhaps people took duty and service blindly without question!. 'For king and country'
I for one would not want to judge Harris on a 'moral' issue like this, he seems to be the fall guy here. 'Collective responsability' means that it was not just Harris who sanctioned this.
Totally agree - Harris was a hero and was very badly treated after the war.
The 'moral' question should not be an issue as this was a policy which was decided at Ministry/Cabinet level. He should be judged on his performance as a leader and a tactician which is superb. My point was that in the case of Dresden he treated the target (which was a legitimate tactical target in support of the Eastern advance) with a strategic (ie displacement) mentality, which coupled with, as Henners said, the make up of the town led to widespread loss of life - and a rapid distancing of the political leadership. He was hung out to dry and took his sense of duty seriously enough to accept it (more or less..)
I believe that the USAAF were supposed to be the lead force for the Dresden raid (daylight portion), but that their attack was delayed by 24hrs due to weather leaving the RAF to spearhead the fire raising - it would be interesting to know reactions if the Americans had been charged with starting the fires......
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Judge a man by the standards and conditions of his time not those of 65-70 years later.
I don't totally agree with that but that is another debate but even by the standards of the day I don't think Harris did anything that could be considered a war crime.
Not saying that the British and certainly not the Allies never did anything wrong in fighting WWII or that anything is justified but I don't agree with the view of some commentators (not on here) that there is moral equivalence between, say, the bombing of Dresden and the concentration camps and so we were as bad as them. We weren't and not by a long chalk.
The other thing to consider, how much real difference is there between the civilians who were bombed in their homes and those who who compulsory called-up? They didn't choose to fight and often didn't have enough real training. And then what about the objectors who were simply shot.
Comments
The reason for this is because the Germans would think that they had over fueled the weapons and reduce the amount in the next ones, thus making them fall short on London which accounted for the number of hits in Kent.
The same was also done for directions too
If a Saturday morning walk is favourite, perhaps we can organise something for a 10/10.30 meet in Blackheath one Saturday before a match and finish up in Greenwich for about 12.30/1pm at the Richard I/Greenwich Union? If a non matchday is preferred, then I'm sure we can sort something out.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. The first V-1 flying bomb in England landed on Grove Road railway bridge in Bow on 13th June 1944 - there is a Blue Plaque there to mark this event. The first V-2 rocket landed in Staveley Road, Chiswick on 8th September 1944. The last V-2 did fall nearby - in Court Road, Orpington on 27th March 1945 - barely 6 weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
Henry - the Greenwich Heritage Centre at the Woolwich Arsenal have got a large selection of local photographs showing Blitz damage - they are quite happy for the likes of us to take digital photographs of them for private use. If being used for commercial purposes, then they are a little more cautious.
As far as a book focusing on SE London is concerned, there is an out of print book called 'Red Alert' by Lewis Blake which concentrates solely on our part of London. It is available online at places like Abe Books (part of Amazon) from time to time but again, the Heritage Centre does have a copy available for inspection.
There will be a book being published next month co-authored by Addicks fan Clive Harris on which I have also worked on called 'A Guide to Wartime London' which features a walk in Blackheath/Greenwich similar to the one that I do. It's being published by Pen & Sword and will be around the £12 mark.
Possibly but don't forget that there was a lot of industry in the area then. On 7th September 1940, which started as a daylight raid, two of the specific targets were Woolwich Arsenal and the Surrey Docks. The bomb aiming techniques in those days were somewhat haphazard - basically unload your incendiaries over the target, hope they were on the money and then the next wave of bombers would come along and aim at the fires. Once they switched solely to night bombing, then it was far more indiscriminate - just unload your bombs over London, which let's face it was (and is) a pretty big target.
Sorry to have been hogging the last few replies but I do make a living out of this particular subject so feel qualified to get involved!
Absolutely correct yes. They had originally been bombing military targets, mainly the RAF's airfields with a view to putting them out of action and giving the Germans air supremacy as a prelude to an invasion planned for September 1940. However, on 25th August a flight of Luftwaffe bombers got hopelessly lost due to a navigational error and instead of dumping their bombs over open countryside as they thought, actually dropped them on the City of London. As a retaliation, Churchill ordered a raid on Berlin and although the damage caused by this raid was minimal, the loss of face in Germany was enormous. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Goering had boasted that 'no enemy aircraft shall fly over Reich territory' and as a result Hitler ordered the bombing attacks switched to London.
Although a lot of death and destruction was caused by this, it ironically meant that the British would win the Battle of Britain as it gave the RAF a chance to rebuild and repair it's airfields, make good its losses and ensure that any attempted seabourne invasion would not be viable.
As to finding London, as you say it was just a case of following the Thames. The two easiest things to follow from the air without the aid of radar are waterways (rivers, canals etc) and railway lines - all of which are in abundance to the south and east of London.
I and Henry Jnr would be up for that walk (although I never drink beer so would have to miss that bit : - ) )
Also the German's were quite happy to bomb civilians in cities when it suited them.
They had already terror bombed Warsaw long before the London Blitz started and had been practising City bombing since the Spanish Civil war in 1936-9.
I beg to differ. I think (I am trying to find the information I had - a lot of it was in extracts from the school diary) that the one you reference is the first one in London. The hit in Swanscombe was on the same day, 13th June, and was presumably part of the same batch of 10 that were launched that morning (including the one in Bow that you mention). I think the swanscombe hit was about 20 minutes earlier than the one in Bow, fortunately there were no casualties.
Thank you all for your input, especially Tom and Jorge.
My parents lived in Red lion Lane and Constitution Rise (Hill) respectively. Neither lived far from The Eagle pub which suffered a direct hit with tragic loss of life. My grandmother was a nurse and tried to help. I (and my children) could easily not be here had the bomb landed a few yards either way.
I too would be interested if a walk happens.
.............
The bombers used were Wellingtons.[/quote]
Cheers for the correction BFR
Tom kindly got me invited to a commerative event at Invicta school later this year, which my grandfather was involved with.
I think this local history is critically important to be preserved and handed down for future generations, as I believe that the chararacter of the local area was so shaped by the events of the war, and the consequences that resulted in that.
Ordinary folk made immense contributions to forge the country we now live in, especially based on the two world wars. And although the first world war may have been a distant event for many families, the second world war effected every family
during the war and for years after!, and thank god they did to enjoy the freedom we enjoy in this country.
It now hangs framed in our living room, I'm not sure the guy at 106 knows that if the "s*** hits the fan" we're all round his place for the night ; )
This is interesting information and is contrary to several published works on the subject. I'd be interested to see any of the info you have if you're in a position to share it as I'd be happy to make this correction on our website. The one in Bow sadly killed 6 people (I think) and injured several others. The early incident logs for these weapons describe them as P.A.C. (Pilotless Aircraft) before settling on the more usually known FLY which basically means "Fly(ing) Bomb" - the V-2s are always described in the logs as "LRR" standing for Long Range Rocket.
The bombing of civilian areas is such an emotive and troubling subject, isn't it?
I mean, when I read about what we did to Dresden - when the war was all but won anyway - I feel pretty ashamed about us burning 20,000 people alive, many of whom were women and children who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazis.
On the flip side, of course, the Nazis showed no hesitancy whatsoever about bombing the hell out of London - at that time one of the most densely populated cities on the planet - so why the hell should the Germans not get a taste of their own medicine?
It is a question that leaves me genuinely conflicted given the level of human suffering involved, especially amongst the non-combatants, on both sides.
I have been reading about how Bomber Harris got ostracised post WWII by "the establishment" and went off to South Africa for a number of years, it was only the personal intervention of Churchill, with the offer of the Baronecy of somewhere, that he came back to the UK.
Makes you think that the powers that be were quite happy for Harris to do their dirty work for them during the war but then went out of their way to distance themselves from him once the war was over.
Plus ca change, as the French would say.
Churchill was not above distancing himself from Harris either. There are suggestions that he was as keen as the next man for the Dresden raid to go ahead to support the Russian advance - but at the end of the war during his victory speech he never mentioned (or thanked) Bomber Command once, despite them being the only truly offensive force during the middle years of the war and losing more than 50% of their aircrew.
Harris was no angel: he pursued strategic area bombing far too long, but at least he was honest about the terror aspect and the 'dehousing' effect and had warned the Air Ministry that they should be upfront about the strategic aims of the campaign with the British public otherwise it would come back to bite them after the war when people's morals had shifted.
I study military history, specifically WW2, there are some good balanced opinions here but it gets my back up when over 60 years later people are still criticising Harris for his actions. Its easy to criticise 60+ years later, this was a time of World War, a war like WW2 will never happen again (thanks god). Harris was put in position and instructed by the government to commit the RAF to all the major bombing missions, including Hamburg and Dresden, both these citys, with most of the buildings made from wood, were targeted by the war office, they even planned which bombs, in which order to use, HE (high explosive) first to blow the houses and buildings apart and Incendiary bombs to start the fires. Lets not forget that the West was under tremendous pressure from Stalin to open up a new front, and to retain Russia as an allie we had to be seen to be fighting, forget the Yanks, without the Russians the allies would not have won WW2. Harris said (about the Germans) 'They have sown the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind'. Harris is and should be considered a hero for overseeing the missions of Bomber Command.
bibble - I agree, Harris did far more to help win the war than, say, Monty but is reviled as a monster. With hindsight (always useful when you know the outcome of a conflict), I still feel that tactical bombing would have been more effective during the last 6 months of the war, but no-one can deny that the man took a shallow ineffective force in early 1942 and developed a ruthless war machine that paved the way for ultimate allied victory mainly through sheer willpower and bloody-mindedness
None of it right in retrospect
but at the time ask those who's family members were dying and their homes across our great capital burning.
If they thought the revenge bombings were correct at the time prob yes now i doubt it.
but those who made the decisions have had to live with them their whole lives.
IMO Harris did what needed to be done
Both my parents were in London during the war (my father was a fire spotter and latter dug up those unexploded bombs (UXBS) as part of 33 Royal Enginner bomb Disposal) and they both took then and take now the view of "Give them a taste of what they gave us"
At the time Dresden was only 60 miles from the front, was a major rail junction and centre for production of military equipment. It was a legitimate target
It is terrible that 25k (not the 250k the Nazi's) died in that city but war is terrible and terrible things happen. And it wasn't just the RAF, the USAAF also bombed the city.
Very good book on it "Dresden, Tuesday 13 February 1945" buy Anthony Taylor.
Harris was badly treated and was the only head of service not to be made a lord.
But also lets not forget it wasn't just London Docklands that were ravaged .......elsewhere in the UK, the heart of entire cities were devastated, Swansea, Coventry, Plymouth and many others.
Plymouth, for example ..... in the square mile of the city centre, there wasn't one building left standing.
That's equivalent to the entire City of London being razed to the ground.
Being an armchair soldier in hindsight is a lot easier than the real thing. This was a world war, not a cod war, and was fought in a time when perhaps people took duty and service blindly without question!. 'For king and country'
I for one would not want to judge Harris on a 'moral' issue like this, he seems to be the fall guy here. 'Collective responsability' means that it was not just Harris who sanctioned this.
Totally agree - Harris was a hero and was very badly treated after the war.
The 'moral' question should not be an issue as this was a policy which was decided at Ministry/Cabinet level. He should be judged on his performance as a leader and a tactician which is superb. My point was that in the case of Dresden he treated the target (which was a legitimate tactical target in support of the Eastern advance) with a strategic (ie displacement) mentality, which coupled with, as Henners said, the make up of the town led to widespread loss of life - and a rapid distancing of the political leadership. He was hung out to dry and took his sense of duty seriously enough to accept it (more or less..)
I believe that the USAAF were supposed to be the lead force for the Dresden raid (daylight portion), but that their attack was delayed by 24hrs due to weather leaving the RAF to spearhead the fire raising - it would be interesting to know reactions if the Americans had been charged with starting the fires......
I don't totally agree with that but that is another debate but even by the standards of the day I don't think Harris did anything that could be considered a war crime.
Not saying that the British and certainly not the Allies never did anything wrong in fighting WWII or that anything is justified but I don't agree with the view of some commentators (not on here) that there is moral equivalence between, say, the bombing of Dresden and the concentration camps and so we were as bad as them. We weren't and not by a long chalk.