[quote][cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]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.[/quote]
If you are talking about the Britich objectors then most where not shot. A lot of Concentious objectors where against war, and killing, but that did not stop them going to war. Most true objectors were given the option to serve in the army as stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers etc. The OX and Bucks (who took Pagasus Bridge), and The Paras who took the Merville battery on D-day had Concheys go in with them, in his book, Dennis Edwards (Sargeant with the OX and Bucks) says that they were some of the bravest people he had met, they went straight into battle, no guns etc and in the heat of battle, picked up the wounded and drove ambulances on the front line. The ones who were just cowards were imprisoned or forced down the mines.
[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.
History is always written by the winners.
Of course it's always dangerous to use hindsight and import our standards onto those of that era but the firebombing of Dresden served very little military purpose. It's fair enough in such a war to bomb the railways, marshalling yards and industrial areas, but what was achieved militarily by firebombing Dresden? The Soviet Red Army had almost bypassed Dresden by early February 1945 and had crossed the River Oder putting them some 70km from Berlin. Having Dresden soon to be in their rear might have been a danger but only in theory as Nazi resistance was crumbling.
Not only did it cost the lives of a lot of citizens but also the bomber crews who were shot down and killed in the process. The British Bomber Command participated in many of these raids - typically at night when darkness gave them some cover, but that meant that quite often it was difficult to ascertain whether the target had been taken out properly. The USAF by contrast chose where possible to bomb in daylight, to ensure that their target areas were more accurately hit and in the knowledge that a missed target from night bombing would cost the lives of more crew when the mission had to be run again.
Two wrongs don't make a right - the Luftwaffe blitz and in particular the blitz on central London of the night of the 29th/30th December could have devasted London in a similar manner, the final wave of bombers was called off which would have finished off London possibly for the duration of the war, but that was no excuse to carry out such an attack on Dresden.
Still at least Dresden's bombing gave us Slaughter House Five.
So, BFR without hindsight when should the Allies have stopped bombing German cities with major railway junctions and armaments production going on such as Dresden? 1942? 43? 44? or right up until the Germans stopped fighting? Allied troops would still have to had fought their way through Dresden and lost more lives
IMHO, there was every reason to bomb Dresden
Should we not have bombarded French towns prior to and after the Normandy invasion? 1000s of French people died.
" the Luftwaffe blitz and in particular the blitz on central London of the night of the 29th/30th December could have devasted London in a similar manner, the final wave of bombers was called off which would have finished off London possibly for the duration of the war"
Sorry but you are going to have to back that up with some evidence. London had been bombed every night for 57 (?) nights. Why would one more night have "finished it off"? The bombing off London continued after the Blitz as well.
Eversince the introduction of the aeroplane the military have used it as a weapon of terror against the civilian population, if you go to the London embankment you can still see damage caused by the Zeppelin raids which were deliberately targeted against civilian targets...
As soon as WWI finished most countries began to develop the bomber as a strategic weapon and not primarily against military targets either, the means of production, the factories and its workers were seen as essential to the creation and successful continuation of modern day warfare, to prevent the enemies mode of military production the factories and workers had to be eliminated....
As early as 1932, British Premier, Stanley Baldwin, had argued the case for a specialised 'Bomber Command' but was not taken seriously, his famous 'The bomber will always get through' speech fell on uninterested ears...
It wasn't until the Spanish civil war demonstrated what the bomber could achieve, most notoriously the German Condor Legions devastation of Guernica, that Britain began to panic and start serious production of long range bombers...
[cite] " the Luftwaffe blitz and in particular the blitz on central London of the night of the 29th/30th December could have devasted London in a similar manner, the final wave of bombers was called off which would have finished off London possibly for the duration of the war"
Sorry but you are going to have to back that up with some evidence. London had been bombed every night for 57 (?) nights. Why would one more night have "finished it off"? The bombing off London continued after the Blitz as well.
London was indeed bombed for 57 consecutive nights from 7th September 1940. There was a brief lull for literally a few nights whilst the raids shifted to places like Coventry and then resumed again on and off (mostly on) until the night of 10th/11th May 1941 which incidentally was the heaviest raid on London of the entire war. There was then a longer lull whilst Hitler attacked eastwards, although even then there were still odd small raids by 'lone raiders' as they were called. In November 1942 we had the Baedecker Raids - so called because the Luftwaffe planners reputedly used the Baedecker Tourist Guide to select their targets. These raids were in retaliation for the RAF raid on the historic city of Lubeck, so in return our historic cities like Canterbury, Exeter, York, Norwich and of course London were attacked. These raids petered out by the spring of '43 when the Luftwaffe was needed in Italy. The 'Baby Blitz' followed from December 1943 to May 1944 and then the Terror Weapon attacks started in June 1944 and continued right until the end of March 1945. So, as we point out on our walks, London was a front line city from a year into the war until about 6 weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
As to my take on the RAF's and USAAF's bombing of German cities? It was total war against a ruthless enemy, not a game of cricket and Bomber Harris was one of the first British commanders to realise this. When fighting an enemy such as Nazi Germany, as distasteful as area bombing may seem today, it had to be done. Make no mistake, if the Germans had developed the capability to inflict the sort of damage on British and American cities as the Allies did to Germany, they would have done so without any qualms.
We only have the freedom to moralise about such actions today because the Allies prevailed.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]So, BFR without hindsight when should the Allies have stopped bombing German cities with major railway junctions and armaments production going on such as Dresden? 1942? 43? 44? or right up until the Germans stopped fighting? Allied troops would still have to had fought their way through Dresden and lost more lives
IMHO, there was every reason to bomb Dresden
Should we not have bombarded French towns prior to and after the Normandy invasion? 1000s of French people died.
" the Luftwaffe blitz and in particular the blitz on central London of the night of the 29th/30th December could have devasted London in a similar manner, the final wave of bombers was called off which would have finished off London possibly for the duration of the war"
Sorry but you are going to have to back that up with some evidence. London had been bombed every night for 57 (?) nights. Why would one more night have "finished it off"? The bombing off London continued after the Blitz as well.
The point that everyone forgets about the Dresden raid was that despite the tons of bombs and the massive firestorm it missed most of the key military targets. For example the German Army barracks didn't get touched (they are still standing today) and several key bridges and other communication sites were also left standing. A more focused and targeted approach would have focused on those key areas and not bothered wasting our aircraft, the lives of our bomber crews and the lives of civilians on the ground. So as an example of strategic bombing it was spectacularly unsuccessful.
Additionally the Red Army was advancing on Berlin and was mostly going through Poland and East Prussia, Dresden is way to the south of Berlin and therefore way out of their line of advance, to the point that it was irrelevant, except that it was important that the military targets such as the army barracks and communications infrastructure be taken out to slow the military re-inforcement of Berlin by the Nazis, but as you now know those targets were missed. Possibly you could argue that the second Red Army column which was advancing along a more southerly route needed to have this target taken out, but the speed of advance was such that Berlin was likely to be taken before Dresden and that was enough to end the war.
The request for Dresden to be taken out was a Soviet demand - and given Stalin's long-term plan for the Soviet Union to dominate eastern Europe I can see why having a potential area of military resistance taken out for him by the western Allies would suit that objective. No need to waste his soldiers lives taking the city and it allowed them to move further into Germany and there they remained until 1991.
And the late December 1940 blitz came very close to causing a major conflagration in London that would have caused something similar to what the RAF meted out on Dresden. I'm well aware that the Blitz lasted several weeks longer but that particular raid was a deliberate attempt to create a firestorm that would have surpassed anything seen before and would potentially have destroyed a large area of central London - and that was the specific target of that raid. As I mention above, the final wave of Luftwaffe bombers turned back when the fires in the City of London were burning out of control, fortunately the weather turned at the right time and London was never subjected to a sustained night of bombing like that again, although the Blitz on the city and other British towns, ports and cities continued.
[cite] And the late December 1940 blitz came very close to causing a major conflagration in London that would have caused something similar to what the RAF meted out on Dresden. I'm well aware that the Blitz lasted several weeks longer but that particular raid was a deliberate attempt to create a firestorm that would have surpassed anything seen before and would potentially have destroyed a large area of central London - and that was the specific target of that raid. As I mention above, the final wave of Luftwaffe bombers turned back when the fires in the City of London were burning out of control, fortunately the weather turned at the right time and London was never subjected to a sustained night of bombing like that again, although the Blitz on the city and other British towns, ports and cities continued.
London WAS subjected to a sustained night of bombing heavier than December 29th on at least 3 occasions. The raids of 19th March 1941, 16th/17th April 1941 and 10th/11th May 1941 were all much heavier than the December 29th raid. The May '41 raid was the heaviest by far with 541 bombers in two sorties dropping 700 tonnes of HE bombs plus 86 tonnes of incendiaries - all inside about 6 hours. Compared with what the Allies dropped on Germany later in the war, these figures pale into insignificance but they were the heaviest of the war by far up until that time.
Goering, Milch, Kesselring and Sperrle all pleaded with Hitler to be allowed to continue the Night Blitz instead of shifting resources eastwards and even after the invasion of Russia started, a third of the Luftwaffe remained in the West but thanks to Hitler's incompetence as a military leader, this country was allowed a respite.
Bomber Harris was very aware of what he was ordering, and that he would cause injury and death to women and children, but he was in command of an elite fighting force.
His duty was to win, and win with the least loss of life to both his men and his country.
In modern times we have smart bombs, which can hit a target within several feet of its aiming point. Back in 1940 it was considered good aiming to get within several miles of hitting your aiming points, let alone finding the town or city in the first place. We picked targets on such things as being about to find it, and areas that we could cause damage with minimum effort, such as wooden building.
To me Harris was a hero in command of thousands of heros doing what the British people both wanted and demanded them to do.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]I understand the point that the Soviets wanted Dresden attacked in order to wipe out any resistance behind them as they advanced.
But surely the main point of firebombing Dresden was to break the morale of the people?
No, it was both.
BFR, you can't just dismiss the need to bomb Dresden as the Soviets were advancing to Berlin. Dresden was still going to be a problem and they still, after the bombing, had to capture it.
That the bombing didn't hit all the main targets only proves that there were main targets. You said that the main garrison wasn't hit. Why was their a main garrison if it was a city totally unconnected with the war as so many have claimed.
Sorry, your "one more night of bombing and London would have collapsed" doesn't stand up as Tom Hovi has shown.
surrender would have meant not being English never ever an option according to my old grandad
i think unless you were there you will never really know the resolve the determination the horror the narrow mindedness of not allowing the capital or the country to fall
Many emotional statements were made at the time along the lines of "one more raid like that....." which is hardly surprising given what was happening to people on the ground. After the night of 10th/11th May 1941, a senior warden said "Another one like that would have had us on our backs." Possibly so, but fortunately the Germans had an incompetent leader who wouldn't allow a follow up raid. Even if they had raided again and again it is doubtful whether the morale of the population of London would have collapsed.
Switching to Germany, even after the RAF had bombed Hamburg back into the Stone Age, Albert Speer made a similar statement that they couldn't stand another raid like that. But after this raid, Dresden, Berlin, Cologne and countless other German cities were pulverised but at no stage did the morale of the civil population really collapse.
This form of bombing did relieve the pressure on the Russians up to a point though - we were in no shape to mount a land invasion of Europe before the spring of 1944, so it was the nearest thing to a 'Second Front' that could be mounted in the run up to that time. It certainly diverted resources such as fighter aircraft from the Eastern Front and did disrupt war production, although not as significantly as was hoped at the time. What also must be remembered is that Bomber Command didn't have the precision capability to attack exact, industrial targets and area bombing was the best use of resources. The Americans did attempt daylight bombing on precise targets and were arguably better equipped to do so but came seriously unstuck in their early attempts at such raids. For example, they lost 60 bombers out of 376 on a raid on the Schweinfurt Ball Bearing factory and it wasn't until the advent of the long range Mustang fighter, which meant that they could be escorted all the way on their daylight raids, that losses were brought down to an acceptable level.
In terms of the impact on the German war machine the Bombing campaign (both RAF and US) was effective.
By 44 one third of all German artillery production was anti-aircraft guns, those guns took 20% of all he ammunition produced, one third of optical equipment and and over half of radar and signals equipment leaving the army and navy desperately short of radar and signals equipment. Also 2m Germans were involved in anti-aircraft defence in some way.
And Dresden speciality was just that sort of high tech radar and radio equipment.
Albert Speer, the Nazi Arms minister, said that in 1944 Germany had as a result of the bombing produced 35% less tanks, 31 % fewer aircraft and 42% fewer trucks than planned.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]In terms of the impact on the German war machine the Bombing campaign (both RAF and US) was effective.
By 44 one third of all German artillery production was anti-aircraft guns, those guns took 20% of all he ammunition produced, one third of optical equipment and and over half of radar and signals equipment leaving the army and navy desperately short of radar and signals equipment. Also 2m Germans were involved in anti-aircraft defence in some way.
And Dresden speciality was just that sort of high tech radar and radio equipment.
Albert Speer, the Nazi Arms minister, said that in 1944 Germany had as a result of the bombing produced 35% less tanks, 31 % fewer aircraft and 42% fewer trucks than planned.
Absolutely, in terms of affecting German industrial production the Allied bomber offensive was effective, although I think that the planners had hoped for even more impact. The fact that German industry was having to concentrate on anti aircraft defences at the expense of other arms of the German armed forces justifies the whole campaign as far as I'm concerned.
It's interesting but Bomber Harris wanted a Bomber Command force consisting of 4,000 Lancasters. He never got close to achieving this and realistically this wouldn't have been possible without diverting industrial production and forces manpower away from other equally or more deserving causes. However, had he achieved this level of bomber force, its a sobering thought to imagine what could have been done with it.
I disagree with the view the Russians asked for Dresden to be bombed, in fact it was the complete opposite...
Dresden was the least bombed of all of German's industrial powerbases, its infrastructure was largely intact, the Nazis were almost certainly defeated and the Russian were certainties to get there first, neither Churchill or Roosevelt trusted Stalin to keep to the previous conference agreements so Dresden was bombed to a) stop a major industrial area falling into the hands of the swiftly advancing Russians and b) to demonstrate to Stalin what the Western Allies could and would do if he stepped out of line...
You could argue the price paid by the German civilian population was too high a price to pay to prove a point but to Harris they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, to him casualties were mere statistics from a barbaric campaign.
Baldwin, a strong advocate for utilising bombers as a stategic weapon, had said years earlier before the war that future wars would be dominated by bombing campaigns and that the object would be to 'kill more of the enemies women and children than they could ours'...
Vera Brittain wrote, 'It is relevant.... perhaps to enquire what we ourselves have destoyed in Cologne, in Hamburg, in Frankfurt and Munich. What Germany has to forgive us who centuries ago, by our Balance of Power policy, committed Europe to ceaseless national conflict. Policies as well as buildings are historic, we must not forget that.'
After touring the rebuilt Dresden, and having recently visted Auschwitz and Birkenau, my brain got torn apart. Hitler had to be stopped, of that I am certain. The views of the 'high ups' in both England and Germany at that time was that civilian populations were rather lesser mortals given to panic and easy to de-moralise. How tragically wrong they were.
May I recommend a book? The Blitz by Juliet Gardiner. It's not a military historians perspective, but uses first hand accounts from ordinary people to build an extraordinary and unforgettable account of what life was like during the Blitz. It's not like a traditional history book, she paints a detailed but vast panorama and together with her literary skills, the final result is an enthralling read.
[cite]Posted By: Eddie Firmani[/cite]Anyway, did anyone do the walk?! If so, how was it? If not, any likelihood of one happening?
I guided a walk on Saturday 18th Sept - we had 3 lifers that came along on the day (sorry didn't have a chance to get their CL names) and who as far as I could tell all enjoyed the experience. I've got another one planned for this Sunday 17th October, meeting at 11am outside All Saints Church in Blackheath - more details from www.blitzwalkers.co.uk - sorry for the shameless plug.
As far as a CL members walk is concerned- if somebody can organise it and agree a date and if I can do that date, then I'd be happy to guide this for you all.
As far as good books on the subject are concerned - there are very many, some written at the time, some more recently. For a book written nearer to the time, I'd recommend 'The City That Wouldn't Die' by Richard Collier which covers one night - 10th/11th May 1941 from both British and German perspectives - long out of print but can still be picked up on Abe Books or Amazon. A more recent one is 'London at War' by Philip Ziegler which as well as the Blitz covers the whole 'Home Front' and what it was like to live in London at the time. The best book on the Battle of Britain as opposed to the Blitz IMHO is 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay - quite superb.
What a fascinating thread. Thankyou to all those who have offered an insight into this sobering subject. I certainly do not feel qualified to make moral judgement on those that have been criticised for their actions in a time that few of us on here can really comprehend. I have one anecdote to add on the bombing of German cities by the RAF. When I was a lad in the early sixties my father had a friend who was a little older than him and was in the RAF just post war and was stationed in Germany. I remember him saying that if you were in RAF uniform which of course he often was, it would be quite common for women to walk up to you and spit followed by the word "Dresden" I know this had a huge impact on him. In many respects I suppose it was understandable for civilians to have such opinions regardless of the strategic rights and wrongs. The story has however stayed with me as a reminder of the real horror of war.
I know what you mean SHG - my Dad used to visit Hamburg, Bremen and Kiel on business a lot in the late 50s and 60s. All of these places - especially Hamburg - had been pulverised by the RAF during the War and the attitude towards the British was quite frosty at times apparently. He didn't tell them that he too had been in the RAF (though not in Bomber Command) during the War as this would only have made things worse no doubt.
I'm sure the attitude of the German public was no different than had a German visited the East End or South London immediately after the war - especially if he'd said he'd been in the Luftwaffe.
To be honest, I think I would've gobbed "Sandhurst School" right back at them. Not right on either score, but there you go.
Fascinating thread - and really good to see disagreement, alternative views and corrections all being conducted in an adult and mature way. I guess the seriuosness and gravity of the subject matter is largely responsible for that, but still refreshing all the same. Well played all.
Serious point - it's stuff like this thta makes this site so bloody good - you won't find stuff of this quality and resonance on many (any?) Other football message boards, that's for sure!
Not going to get into an argument about precision v strategic bombing. Both had their advocates at the time and in histiography since. IN my personal opinioon strategoic bombing (i.e bombing residential areas in key cities to deprive war industries of work forces) was effective earlier in the war but precision bombing should have become more important later as the Germans learnt to take counter measures, the accuracy and range of bombing improved and as the allies prepared to invade northern France. In my view Harris was far too obstnate but at the same time was deprived by Chruchill of key ULTRA intelligence which might have allowed him to change his mind.
I don't think it's anochronistic to criticise Harris on humanitarian grounds. I wouldn''t do so myself but there was plenty of objection by George Orwell and many others at the time. Such criticism is not with hindsight. For example the bombing of Pforzheim very late in the war seemed to many to have very little military value although over 17,000 civilians were killed.
Harris was not snubbed by the establishment after the war. He was promoted to Air Marshal in 1946. He was not refused a perage, he was offered one but refused it himself on the basis that Bomber Command was not awarded a campaign medal.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]....
May I recommend a book? The Blitz by Juliet Gardiner. It's not a military historians perspective, but uses first hand accounts from ordinary people to build an extraordinary and unforgettable account of what life was like during the Blitz. It's not like a traditional history book, she paints a detailed but vast panorama and together with her literary skills, the final result is an enthralling read.
Just finished this a couple of days ago. Excellent book which covers the whole of the UK experiences and not just London. Sobering fact was that until the back end of 1942 there had been more civilians killed in the UK during the blitz than had died serving in the British army..
[cite]Posted By: CatAddick[/cite]Sobering fact was that until the back end of 1942 there had been more civilians killed in the UK during the blitz than had died serving in the British army..
That is a sobering fact indeed.
And puts into sharp context what ordinary civilians had to go through at the time.
Comments
If you are talking about the Britich objectors then most where not shot. A lot of Concentious objectors where against war, and killing, but that did not stop them going to war. Most true objectors were given the option to serve in the army as stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers etc. The OX and Bucks (who took Pagasus Bridge), and The Paras who took the Merville battery on D-day had Concheys go in with them, in his book, Dennis Edwards (Sargeant with the OX and Bucks) says that they were some of the bravest people he had met, they went straight into battle, no guns etc and in the heat of battle, picked up the wounded and drove ambulances on the front line. The ones who were just cowards were imprisoned or forced down the mines.
History is always written by the winners.
Of course it's always dangerous to use hindsight and import our standards onto those of that era but the firebombing of Dresden served very little military purpose. It's fair enough in such a war to bomb the railways, marshalling yards and industrial areas, but what was achieved militarily by firebombing Dresden? The Soviet Red Army had almost bypassed Dresden by early February 1945 and had crossed the River Oder putting them some 70km from Berlin. Having Dresden soon to be in their rear might have been a danger but only in theory as Nazi resistance was crumbling.
Not only did it cost the lives of a lot of citizens but also the bomber crews who were shot down and killed in the process. The British Bomber Command participated in many of these raids - typically at night when darkness gave them some cover, but that meant that quite often it was difficult to ascertain whether the target had been taken out properly. The USAF by contrast chose where possible to bomb in daylight, to ensure that their target areas were more accurately hit and in the knowledge that a missed target from night bombing would cost the lives of more crew when the mission had to be run again.
Two wrongs don't make a right - the Luftwaffe blitz and in particular the blitz on central London of the night of the 29th/30th December could have devasted London in a similar manner, the final wave of bombers was called off which would have finished off London possibly for the duration of the war, but that was no excuse to carry out such an attack on Dresden.
Still at least Dresden's bombing gave us Slaughter House Five.
IMHO, there was every reason to bomb Dresden
Should we not have bombarded French towns prior to and after the Normandy invasion? 1000s of French people died.
" the Luftwaffe blitz and in particular the blitz on central London of the night of the 29th/30th December could have devasted London in a similar manner, the final wave of bombers was called off which would have finished off London possibly for the duration of the war"
Sorry but you are going to have to back that up with some evidence. London had been bombed every night for 57 (?) nights. Why would one more night have "finished it off"? The bombing off London continued after the Blitz as well.
As soon as WWI finished most countries began to develop the bomber as a strategic weapon and not primarily against military targets either, the means of production, the factories and its workers were seen as essential to the creation and successful continuation of modern day warfare, to prevent the enemies mode of military production the factories and workers had to be eliminated....
As early as 1932, British Premier, Stanley Baldwin, had argued the case for a specialised 'Bomber Command' but was not taken seriously, his famous 'The bomber will always get through' speech fell on uninterested ears...
It wasn't until the Spanish civil war demonstrated what the bomber could achieve, most notoriously the German Condor Legions devastation of Guernica, that Britain began to panic and start serious production of long range bombers...
The rest, as they say, is history...
London was indeed bombed for 57 consecutive nights from 7th September 1940. There was a brief lull for literally a few nights whilst the raids shifted to places like Coventry and then resumed again on and off (mostly on) until the night of 10th/11th May 1941 which incidentally was the heaviest raid on London of the entire war. There was then a longer lull whilst Hitler attacked eastwards, although even then there were still odd small raids by 'lone raiders' as they were called. In November 1942 we had the Baedecker Raids - so called because the Luftwaffe planners reputedly used the Baedecker Tourist Guide to select their targets. These raids were in retaliation for the RAF raid on the historic city of Lubeck, so in return our historic cities like Canterbury, Exeter, York, Norwich and of course London were attacked. These raids petered out by the spring of '43 when the Luftwaffe was needed in Italy. The 'Baby Blitz' followed from December 1943 to May 1944 and then the Terror Weapon attacks started in June 1944 and continued right until the end of March 1945. So, as we point out on our walks, London was a front line city from a year into the war until about 6 weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
As to my take on the RAF's and USAAF's bombing of German cities? It was total war against a ruthless enemy, not a game of cricket and Bomber Harris was one of the first British commanders to realise this. When fighting an enemy such as Nazi Germany, as distasteful as area bombing may seem today, it had to be done. Make no mistake, if the Germans had developed the capability to inflict the sort of damage on British and American cities as the Allies did to Germany, they would have done so without any qualms.
We only have the freedom to moralise about such actions today because the Allies prevailed.
The point that everyone forgets about the Dresden raid was that despite the tons of bombs and the massive firestorm it missed most of the key military targets. For example the German Army barracks didn't get touched (they are still standing today) and several key bridges and other communication sites were also left standing. A more focused and targeted approach would have focused on those key areas and not bothered wasting our aircraft, the lives of our bomber crews and the lives of civilians on the ground. So as an example of strategic bombing it was spectacularly unsuccessful.
Additionally the Red Army was advancing on Berlin and was mostly going through Poland and East Prussia, Dresden is way to the south of Berlin and therefore way out of their line of advance, to the point that it was irrelevant, except that it was important that the military targets such as the army barracks and communications infrastructure be taken out to slow the military re-inforcement of Berlin by the Nazis, but as you now know those targets were missed. Possibly you could argue that the second Red Army column which was advancing along a more southerly route needed to have this target taken out, but the speed of advance was such that Berlin was likely to be taken before Dresden and that was enough to end the war.
The request for Dresden to be taken out was a Soviet demand - and given Stalin's long-term plan for the Soviet Union to dominate eastern Europe I can see why having a potential area of military resistance taken out for him by the western Allies would suit that objective. No need to waste his soldiers lives taking the city and it allowed them to move further into Germany and there they remained until 1991.
And the late December 1940 blitz came very close to causing a major conflagration in London that would have caused something similar to what the RAF meted out on Dresden. I'm well aware that the Blitz lasted several weeks longer but that particular raid was a deliberate attempt to create a firestorm that would have surpassed anything seen before and would potentially have destroyed a large area of central London - and that was the specific target of that raid. As I mention above, the final wave of Luftwaffe bombers turned back when the fires in the City of London were burning out of control, fortunately the weather turned at the right time and London was never subjected to a sustained night of bombing like that again, although the Blitz on the city and other British towns, ports and cities continued.
London WAS subjected to a sustained night of bombing heavier than December 29th on at least 3 occasions. The raids of 19th March 1941, 16th/17th April 1941 and 10th/11th May 1941 were all much heavier than the December 29th raid. The May '41 raid was the heaviest by far with 541 bombers in two sorties dropping 700 tonnes of HE bombs plus 86 tonnes of incendiaries - all inside about 6 hours. Compared with what the Allies dropped on Germany later in the war, these figures pale into insignificance but they were the heaviest of the war by far up until that time.
Goering, Milch, Kesselring and Sperrle all pleaded with Hitler to be allowed to continue the Night Blitz instead of shifting resources eastwards and even after the invasion of Russia started, a third of the Luftwaffe remained in the West but thanks to Hitler's incompetence as a military leader, this country was allowed a respite.
His duty was to win, and win with the least loss of life to both his men and his country.
In modern times we have smart bombs, which can hit a target within several feet of its aiming point. Back in 1940 it was considered good aiming to get within several miles of hitting your aiming points, let alone finding the town or city in the first place. We picked targets on such things as being about to find it, and areas that we could cause damage with minimum effort, such as wooden building.
To me Harris was a hero in command of thousands of heros doing what the British people both wanted and demanded them to do.
actual footage.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=13192
And London in the blitz:
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=12636
But surely the main point of firebombing Dresden was to break the morale of the people?
No, it was both.
BFR, you can't just dismiss the need to bomb Dresden as the Soviets were advancing to Berlin. Dresden was still going to be a problem and they still, after the bombing, had to capture it.
That the bombing didn't hit all the main targets only proves that there were main targets. You said that the main garrison wasn't hit. Why was their a main garrison if it was a city totally unconnected with the war as so many have claimed.
Sorry, your "one more night of bombing and London would have collapsed" doesn't stand up as Tom Hovi has shown.
one more night wouldve been just another night
surrender would have meant not being English never ever an option according to my old grandad
i think unless you were there you will never really know the resolve the determination the horror the narrow mindedness of not allowing the capital or the country to fall
so many so great so much sacrificed
Switching to Germany, even after the RAF had bombed Hamburg back into the Stone Age, Albert Speer made a similar statement that they couldn't stand another raid like that. But after this raid, Dresden, Berlin, Cologne and countless other German cities were pulverised but at no stage did the morale of the civil population really collapse.
This form of bombing did relieve the pressure on the Russians up to a point though - we were in no shape to mount a land invasion of Europe before the spring of 1944, so it was the nearest thing to a 'Second Front' that could be mounted in the run up to that time. It certainly diverted resources such as fighter aircraft from the Eastern Front and did disrupt war production, although not as significantly as was hoped at the time. What also must be remembered is that Bomber Command didn't have the precision capability to attack exact, industrial targets and area bombing was the best use of resources. The Americans did attempt daylight bombing on precise targets and were arguably better equipped to do so but came seriously unstuck in their early attempts at such raids. For example, they lost 60 bombers out of 376 on a raid on the Schweinfurt Ball Bearing factory and it wasn't until the advent of the long range Mustang fighter, which meant that they could be escorted all the way on their daylight raids, that losses were brought down to an acceptable level.
By 44 one third of all German artillery production was anti-aircraft guns, those guns took 20% of all he ammunition produced, one third of optical equipment and and over half of radar and signals equipment leaving the army and navy desperately short of radar and signals equipment. Also 2m Germans were involved in anti-aircraft defence in some way.
And Dresden speciality was just that sort of high tech radar and radio equipment.
Albert Speer, the Nazi Arms minister, said that in 1944 Germany had as a result of the bombing produced 35% less tanks, 31 % fewer aircraft and 42% fewer trucks than planned.
Absolutely, in terms of affecting German industrial production the Allied bomber offensive was effective, although I think that the planners had hoped for even more impact. The fact that German industry was having to concentrate on anti aircraft defences at the expense of other arms of the German armed forces justifies the whole campaign as far as I'm concerned.
It's interesting but Bomber Harris wanted a Bomber Command force consisting of 4,000 Lancasters. He never got close to achieving this and realistically this wouldn't have been possible without diverting industrial production and forces manpower away from other equally or more deserving causes. However, had he achieved this level of bomber force, its a sobering thought to imagine what could have been done with it.
Dresden was the least bombed of all of German's industrial powerbases, its infrastructure was largely intact, the Nazis were almost certainly defeated and the Russian were certainties to get there first, neither Churchill or Roosevelt trusted Stalin to keep to the previous conference agreements so Dresden was bombed to a) stop a major industrial area falling into the hands of the swiftly advancing Russians and b) to demonstrate to Stalin what the Western Allies could and would do if he stepped out of line...
You could argue the price paid by the German civilian population was too high a price to pay to prove a point but to Harris they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, to him casualties were mere statistics from a barbaric campaign.
Baldwin, a strong advocate for utilising bombers as a stategic weapon, had said years earlier before the war that future wars would be dominated by bombing campaigns and that the object would be to 'kill more of the enemies women and children than they could ours'...
After touring the rebuilt Dresden, and having recently visted Auschwitz and Birkenau, my brain got torn apart. Hitler had to be stopped, of that I am certain. The views of the 'high ups' in both England and Germany at that time was that civilian populations were rather lesser mortals given to panic and easy to de-moralise. How tragically wrong they were.
May I recommend a book? The Blitz by Juliet Gardiner. It's not a military historians perspective, but uses first hand accounts from ordinary people to build an extraordinary and unforgettable account of what life was like during the Blitz. It's not like a traditional history book, she paints a detailed but vast panorama and together with her literary skills, the final result is an enthralling read.
I guided a walk on Saturday 18th Sept - we had 3 lifers that came along on the day (sorry didn't have a chance to get their CL names) and who as far as I could tell all enjoyed the experience. I've got another one planned for this Sunday 17th October, meeting at 11am outside All Saints Church in Blackheath - more details from www.blitzwalkers.co.uk - sorry for the shameless plug.
As far as a CL members walk is concerned- if somebody can organise it and agree a date and if I can do that date, then I'd be happy to guide this for you all.
As far as good books on the subject are concerned - there are very many, some written at the time, some more recently. For a book written nearer to the time, I'd recommend 'The City That Wouldn't Die' by Richard Collier which covers one night - 10th/11th May 1941 from both British and German perspectives - long out of print but can still be picked up on Abe Books or Amazon. A more recent one is 'London at War' by Philip Ziegler which as well as the Blitz covers the whole 'Home Front' and what it was like to live in London at the time. The best book on the Battle of Britain as opposed to the Blitz IMHO is 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay - quite superb.
The walk sounds great. Count me in.
I'm sure the attitude of the German public was no different than had a German visited the East End or South London immediately after the war - especially if he'd said he'd been in the Luftwaffe.
Fascinating thread - and really good to see disagreement, alternative views and corrections all being conducted in an adult and mature way. I guess the seriuosness and gravity of the subject matter is largely responsible for that, but still refreshing all the same. Well played all.
Serious point - it's stuff like this thta makes this site so bloody good - you won't find stuff of this quality and resonance on many (any?) Other football message boards, that's for sure!
I don't think it's anochronistic to criticise Harris on humanitarian grounds. I wouldn''t do so myself but there was plenty of objection by George Orwell and many others at the time. Such criticism is not with hindsight. For example the bombing of Pforzheim very late in the war seemed to many to have very little military value although over 17,000 civilians were killed.
Harris was not snubbed by the establishment after the war. He was promoted to Air Marshal in 1946. He was not refused a perage, he was offered one but refused it himself on the basis that Bomber Command was not awarded a campaign medal.
Just finished this a couple of days ago. Excellent book which covers the whole of the UK experiences and not just London. Sobering fact was that until the back end of 1942 there had been more civilians killed in the UK during the blitz than had died serving in the British army..
That is a sobering fact indeed.
And puts into sharp context what ordinary civilians had to go through at the time.