Talk:Arthur Harris/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

War crimes

The Nuremberg Trials were restricted to Nazi crimes, so it was impossible to try Harris and others there. It can be criticized that acts the Allies had committed, too, like the deliberate mass killing of civilians were not tried. Get-back-world-respect 22:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the version

"Although international law defined the targeting of civilians as a war crime, the bombings ordered by Harris and similar acts were never tried, which some see as an event of victor's justice. The Nuremberg Trials (Predecessor of the International Criminal Court) were restricted to crimes of the European Axis by the London Charter. Aerial bombings were not tried there."

over

"As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for war crimes for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, it is not possible to say that that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was a war crime. However some people think that if Harris had been tried in a court authorised to try such a case, he might have been found guilt of war crimes."

because a comment like "as there was no trial we do not know if it was a crime" is redundant. The reader knows that anyway. If the Nuremberg Trials are mentioned it must be mentioned that they were restricted to crimes of the Axis and thus did not apply fot Harris anyways. "some people think that if Harris had been tried in a court authorised to try such a case, he might have been found guilt of war crimes." is just speculation (and has a typo). What is relevant are facts, like the fact that targeting of civilians was defined as a war crime. Get-back-world-respect 16:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Athough international law defined the targeting of civilians as a war crime, the bombings ordered by Harris and similar acts were never tried

  1. Which treaty that the British had signed before 1945 said that targeting civilians was a war crime?
  2. What is the evidence that the RAF targeted civilians?
  3. Given the parameters of Hague 25,26,27 which airforce in World War II broke its treaty obligations?
  4. Without a court case all that you wrote is POV.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes I asked my daughter and a couple of other 11 year olds and they did not know that that "as there was not trial....". So just becaue you know it don't assume that everone else does --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) No such treaty exists it seems. The fourth geneva convention was signed in 1949. Previous treaties did not cover this situation. Civilians, were probably a legitimate military target at the time. See below however.
GCIV would not apply even today because it covers civilians in the hands of an enemy not those behind their own lines.
2) the fire bombings of Dresden and also Tokyo were specifically designed to channel civilians to areas where they would be killed. My source is an interview with Robert McNamara I saw on television on BBC world. It comes from the film The Fog of War [1].
In the article which you have supplied unfortunatly does not say why he thinks that American commands were war criminals. As I have not seen the program you have me at a disadvantage. He was so low down the food chain in WWII that he is saying that any American officer involved with bombers was a war criminal. A lot of them would dispute this, without a court case one can not say that he was correct. Was he working in Asia or Europe. If Asia how does he know what was done at Dresden (or vic versa)? Also I am not sure how the Americans could channel civilians to areas where they would be killed in Dresden (a) as the British caused the firstorm before the Americans bombed (b) the Americans said that they aimed their bombss the railway yards not the town (althought how they could see anyting whith optical sites throught the smoke from the fires is beyond me).
3) All air forces of countries which had non agression pacts and started the war (guess who) Probably anybody who bombed a hospital (see below).
I don't understand what you mean by "non agression pacts" and the influence they had on the use of air forces apart for planning a war of aggression. Which only applies to countries in WWII which started a war of agression and had signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact. As any military worth its pay has a contingency plan for any situation...
4) it might be much better to say something like "Harris committed acts which should nowadays be seen as war crimes, in their era they were rather standard and nothing worth mentioning compared to, for example what was done to Warsaw". However, I'm not even sure that after Vietnam and other more recent acts we can claim that carpet bombing is even considered a war crime nowadays.
Mozzerati 22:46, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
But in all ages there are things which if done today we would call a war crime. Just look at how seige warfare was conducted until recently. "If you don't surrender and we get it you are all dead. Now do you want to surrender" etc. That is definatly a war crime by todays laws and so nearly all besigers up to the latter part of the 1800s would be a war crime by todays laws (Hague art 23 To declare that no quarter will be given) and GCIII(?);. It does not get us anywhere. If they acted within the law of their day then nothing is gained by saying it would have been a crime today.

Looking through the treaties, it's kind of possible to take a number of sections and apply them to what Harris did.

Hague IV / Art. 23.

"...it is especially forbidden - To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

the whole of Art. 27.

e.g.

Also his attacks would have included the destruction of marked hospitals etc. Do you believe that these don't apply? Mozzerati 22:46, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

So we are clear lets use Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907[2]. The reason I used the specific words that I did "assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory" is because articles 25,26,27 cover it for all countries which used arial bombardment.
  • 25 The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
  • 26 The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
  • 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
  • It was a bombardment of defended towns.
  • It was an arial assault so no warning need be given.
  • All necessary steps as far as possible were taken. We could argue the point whether "all necessary steps as far as possible were taken" but that is exactly what would have been argued in court. As for Article 23 the clause you have presented would not fly because the arms and projectiles used explosives and incendiary materials which are acceptable under common usage of war and have been used for centuries. A better clause would be To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; In the case of the British, it had been decided at Cabinet level, that the destruction was "a necessity of war" and they were not targeting civilians only their property... This would have kept the lawyers busy for years, as it has academics.
Without a court case one can only have an POV on the issue which is why statments like "Athough international law defined the targeting of civilians as a war crime" should not be used because it imples that the law at the time was clear cut, that targeting civilians was a war crime. This may or may not be true, but no one has yet shown me a treaty which says it was. But even if it was the airforces of the war would have argued that they were not targeting civilians but their property. Is reckless endangerment a war crime? I have no idea. Was it a war crime in WWII? I have no idea. Was targeting enemy property by "assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory" a war crime in WWII? I think not, but Get-back-world-respect is sure that it is. Without a court case we will never know who is right. This should be reflected in what is written on the article page. I have tried to find a wording which highlights this, but it is difficult to please people who are SURE that a crime was committed. Philip Baird Shearer 01:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As there are documents proving that the bombers were ordered to target civilian housing and strafe those who wanted to help you cannot call it "defended territory". An encyclopedia cannot aim at interpreting the law but has to present the facts. Fact is that there is a dispute over whether the bombing was a war crime or a crime against humanity. Particular articles of the Hague convention are interesting but not discussed prominently enough to mention them in an encyclopedia. I think that as no one publicly argues that Harris should have been placed at Nuremberg next to Nazi criminals it would not even have to be mentioned here. The reason why it is mentioned is only that the Nazis were not tried for the same acts either. Get-back-world-respect 11:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. The British did not give orders to strafe anything during the Dresden raid. (I assume Americans would have been told to strafe enemy military vehicles in attacks like the one which got Rommel, but I don't know that. I would assume that targeting civilian enemy vehicles would come under the same defence as targeting houses. But we are talking about the Harris who was a Brit).
  2. Germany was defended on the ground and against arial attack. How can you possibly say that it was not? The loss of life in Allied bombing crews over Germany particularly east Germany was very high. If Dresden was not defended what shot down the British planes lost on that specific raid? In the Battle of Berlin (air) the RAF suffered such a high attrition rate the battle was called off.

You wrote "I think that as no one publicly argues that Harris should have been placed at Nuremberg next to Nazi criminals". Well we agree on that then. I am not suggesting that Harris should have been put on trial. What I am stating on the page is that no Germans was put on trial for assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory" so as no one was tried for the alleged crime, we can not say that it was a war crime (or a crime against humanity).

You keep writing "Although international law defined the targeting of civilians as a war crime":

  • Which international law, in force before 1945 defined targeting of civilans as a war crime?
  • Where is the evidence that the RAF targeted civilians?
  • Where is the evidence that targeting civilian property was a war crime?

--Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When tried by the English in 1305, William Wallace was charged, among other things, with murdering civilians. Too Old 20:11, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

He was also exected for treason, which if it were true (and it clearly was not), then anyone he had killed would have been murderd. I don't think it is not a good example. If you had asked me 6 months ago "was the killing of any enemy civilians behind enemy lines against the laws and customs of war", I would have answered yes I think so. I am not convinced that it is not. But I have not seen a reference to a treaty or an international court case which state that it is. I look forward to you providing one. Philip Baird Shearer 20:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The victors never stand trial, regardless of treaties. But law, national or international, is not exclusively made by statute and treaty. The opinion of humanity is more important. Statutes and treaties are made by the powerful and enforced against the weak. All courts are kangaroo courts in as much as they enforce the will of the powerful against the weak. Hitler and Stalin had courts and judges quite willing to render judgement acceptable to their masters. So do all countries.
In my way of thinking, when a person is deliberately killed a murder has been done. It matters not at all to me whether the killing was done by an individual, a group, a state, a nation, a court, an army. The only exceptions can be defense against an immediate threat to oneself or another, or to save one person in a case where otherwise two or more would die.
I agree with Benjamin Franklin: "There never was a good war or a bad peace."
Too Old 22:43, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
I cannot believe all comments that he is accused of war crimes were deleted from the article. I regard that as severely disrespecting this discussion. Having one single user with obvious preferences dominating all articles related to aerial bombardment by the allies in my eyes puts the value of them very much into question. 84.59.83.159 14:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


War Crimes? By what law? The victors make the laws, and only the defeated are guilty. Besides, only a fool would forget Inter arma enim silent leges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.127.161 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WISDOM FOLLOWS, PAY ATTENTION! There was an international treaty on aerial warfare in 1927-1928 which prohibited the aerial bombardment of cities, except for equal or less retaliation in case of such enemy attack happened previously. So Coventry is no excuse for Dresden. 82.131.210.162 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perphaps not but it was a case of they 'started it and we will finish it'. By bombing Dresden the allies proved Hitler wrong (that Germany was safe from enemy bombing) and also let all the people know that the tide had turned. War is not nice or fair, especially this one in particular, i dont seem to have seen Germany following this International Treaty so i dont see why Britain should have done. The fact of the matter is Dresden boosted morale massively in Britain, and led to it plummeting in Germany. Maybe if 60,000 innocent civilians had not died in the Blitz then the RAF and USAAF might not of needed to do what they did. It is alright to condone Sir Harris now but you do not currently have German bombers dropping bombs on your house, this was what led to the groundswell of his support and the Nazi High Command was severely shaken by these attacks. It was all about revenge. ([User:Willski72]) 20:50, 10 November 2008 Willski72 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion and the one below under "war criminal" are largley Off Topic. The criterior for inclusion of comments about some people considering Harris a war criminal- is do people discuss whether he is a war criminal or not, not whether he actually was one. People do publicly discuss whether Harris was a war criminal therefore we must include mention of it. I just did a search of the article and could not find the term. I'll add something in when I have time. If you want to prevent mention of war crimes in this article then I would judge that you need to address the question "do people discuss war crimes in connection with Harris" or questions of WP policy Pete the pitiless (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Attribution of Quote

I'm wondering where the quote that ends the article is from. When did Harris say this? I have no doubt the quote is correct, it would just be nice to put it in context. Lisiate 20:12, 13 October 2004 (UTC)

Butcher Harris

and often, in the RAF, as "Butcher" Harris,

Do you have a credible source that say it was used by a lot of people in the RAF? Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember this from somewhere too. However, my recollection is that it refers to the attrition rates within the air crews and is not related to the civilian deaths. Wiki-Ed 11:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A quote from Ken Newman, a bomber command veteran - 'We called Harris “Butch” because we regarded him as a butcher – not a butcher of the Germans but a butcher of the RAF.' – p.73 in Tail-End Charlies by John Nicoll and Tony Rennell, Penguin Books 2005 The nickname appears in many Bomber Command veteran’s memoirs and while I have never been able to find a single source I think the phase was in common usage at the time. Andrewshobley 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Post war

At that point the British appear to have changed their mind about his tactics, and Harris received an honour despite strong protests by the German government.

If there is not a credible source for this statment and some more details, (what was the honour and which "German government"?) it should be deleted. Philip Baird Shearer 17:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article currently reads:

Bomber Command's crews were denied a separate campaign medal (despite being eligible for the Air Crew Europe and France and Germany stars) and, in protest, Harris refused a peerage in 1951.

Is there a source which can varify that sentence in the Wikipedia article that he refused a peerage in 1951 because there was no seperate campaign medal? Philip Baird Shearer 01:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

See Probert's biography of Harris, this information is in there. Andrewshobley 09:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a page number? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See Probert, pages 346-351 for more details of this; the date of the original refusal is 1945 and I have modified the article accordingly - see Probert p 374 Andrewshobley 11:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put a slight modified to the ordering the text and added footnotes, please could you look it over the notes and check that I have understood you page numbers correctly and also add the correct page number for his acceptance of the baronetcy. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, page ref modified Andrewshobley81.77.219.214 16:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous interviews with aircrew who used this name for Harris. It is mentioned in many, many publications and TV documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbod (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

War criminal

This man is highly controversial and seen as a war criminal by many. Even if among those who see him as such are Nazi groups as he is most well known for what many see as crimes this needs to be expressed in the introduction. 84.59.88.9 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I know little about this topic, and will not enter into this conflict. Still, I find the text you are trying to insert to be oddly written, and object to its insertion on those grounds alone. Please consider a change:
  • "This remains controversial to this day for the death and destruction it caused among civilians in Germany. His actions are discussed as war crimes or crimes against humanity but no trial has ever decided upon that question."
could be worded as
  • "His actions remain controversial, due to the large number of civilian casualties and destruction in Germany. Although his actions are sometimes seen as war crimes or crimes against humanity, no court has ever ruled on the issue."
Obviously, you will also need to find a source for the assertion that his actions were controversial, preferably from a respected and uncontroversial party. Some substantiation of the 'large number of casualties' wouldn't hurt either. Thank you. -- Ec5618 14:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to the whole statement, because if Harris committed a war crime, then so did his superiors who issued the RAF Bomber Command directives, (If they had thought that Harris was ignoring their directives then they would have replaced him), the other men of Bomber Command who took part in the raids, and all of the British Cabinet who authorised and initaiated area bombing. Unless there is a reliable source which states that Harris ordered an act which is a war crime and was outside the scope of the RAF Bomber Command directives, then the statement is not something which should be included in an encyclopedia.

BTW no national or international court tried any member of the Axis armed forces for particpating in or ordering area bombing, so it is unlikly that it was seen as a war crime at the time. This is not just a case of victors justice because, unrestricted submarine warfare for which Dönitz was found guilty although the same methods were used by the Allies. Gavier Guisández Gómez pointed out in the International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998):

In examining these events [aerial area bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.[3]

For more details on the treaty obligations see Aerial area bombardment and international law --Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the wording improvement. To be honest I am surprised that anyone does not know Harris is a controversial figure. Why else was his statue sprayed with graffiti all the time and why else were there protests against it in Germany as well as in Britain? I do not think that an introduction paragraph of an encyclopedia should quote sources. And they have already been provided, P B Shearer just seems to choose to ignore them. As was already noted at the Dresden bombing article, google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. [4], [5] [6] Get-back-world-respect 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alot of the argument on here fails to recognise the context under which area bombing was first adopted as an Allied strategy. RAF surveys in 1941 showed less than one bomb in ten was dropped at night within 10 miles of its target. It was Churchill's executive decision to continue night bombing during the mid-war years as the only way at the time the Allies could hit back directly at Nazi Germany.As the RAF's accuracy could not improve until electronic aids were developed in 1944/45 the only thing they could bomb with any certainty of hitting was cities - and big ones at that. Harris -as Bomber Command head- could only utilise the means at his disposal to comply to Churchill's objective. Despite comments to the contrary Harris was never totally obsessed with area bombing; he only saw it as the most appropriate means to an end- the defeat of the enemy. When feasible precision pin-point attacks were made by day and night (as in the Dams raids, 2 group mosquito operations, etc) As for targeting civilians, thats a whole new theological argument; for when does a weapon of war -like a tank- become a legitimate target? On the front line? in the factory? etc, etc. (Harryurz 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

As Churchill himself wrote, area bombing became a practice used for the sake of terrorizing the civilian population. Terrorizing civilians is one of the many crimes the Nazis had started, and even if you disagree about this, you cannot deny that a notable number of people see it as a war crime or crime against humanity. Get-back-world-respect 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Making the rubble bounce"

This phrase, if it is a quote, it needs to have a reference source relevant to the article context (an initial browse through google turns up the phrase in a nuclear war context), otherwise I think it should go - if its not a relevant quote that can be specifically attributed to Bomber Harris or Frederick Taylor or another relevant commentator, the phrase is non-encyclopedic (its colloquial and emotionally loaded), and may even be offensive. "Devastated", or if one prefers, "repeatedly devastated" should be sufficient to describe the destruction of the cities (unless one subscribes to the hyperinflation of descriptive language). Can someone turn up a relevant reference for this phrase? Bwithh 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase appears to come from Winston Churchill - but from 1954, and about nuclear warsee this link, not the bombing of Germany. If noone can turn up another reference from a commentator from the period of the bombing campaigns, I will be substituting this phrase. Bwithh 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the term it is expressive, colourful, and describes what was going on much more succinctly than the word devastated does. I never claimed that it was a quote from Taylor so it does not have to be a phrase Taylor used. It does not have to be an expression from the 1940 because it is in current usage for conventional aerial bombardments. Colin Powell used it when describing his decision to advise an end to the initial conventional aerial Shock and Awe Campaign and the start of Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf war (Rick Atkinson, Crusade (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993), 288,289). More recently by Former U.S. ambassador to the UN , Richard Holbrooke about the conventional bombardment in Afghanistan. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Squadron numbers

Recent edits have added "No. 45 Squadron" and No. 58 Squadron. Neither of these are sourced in Longmate, which at the moment is the principle pre-WWII reference. Please can we have a reference for these two factoids. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for Harris' RFC service is Christopher Shores' 'Above the Trenches' (Grub Street 1990) Harryurz 13:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not on the talk page we need the source, but in the article as a footnote with page number. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in referenceing; I'm a newcomer so not sure how to cross-reference sources. While I'm learning how to work it out if someone else can do the honours i'd be grateful [[Harryurz 22:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]]

No problem. Do you have the page number? BTW you can sign you posts to a talk page with ~~~~ and wikipedia will automagically convert it into a timed signature. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for Harris' RFC service; Christopher Shores' 'Above the Trenches' (Grub Street 1990)- page 185 [[Harryurz 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)]]

OK I've done that one. Perhapse you would like to add the one for No. 58 Squadron, but if you would like me to do it then please put the reference here. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamian references

The following text does not have a citation. I would not be surprised if he did contribute and did say such a thing, but it is contriversial and should have a reference. Please could someone provide one:

Harris also contributed at this time to the development of bombing using delay-action bombs, which were then applied to keep down uprisings of the Mesopotamian tribes fighting against British occupation. Despite the many civilian victims of these air raids, Harris is recorded as having remarked "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand."

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

21:00, 29 April 2006 82.41.40.90

I am removed the follwing which was added to the article by user:82.41.40.90 It needs a lot of work (a) because it has a strong POV which is not sourced and (b) because statments like "They were freak events; they were not planned. 99% of RAF bombing raids did not cause firestorms." must have sources to be used. However I think it is interesting and with some reworking, the inclusion of links and the citing of sources, some/most of it might be usable. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The attitudes and decisions of Arthur Harris need to be seen within the context of their time, rather than judged with decades of post-war prosperity hindsight. It is a common fallacy that area bombing was merely one of a range of options that Britain could have pursued against Nazi Germany. A review of possibilities shows that in fact, area bombing was the only action that Britain could take after Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain.
A naval blockade could have only limited effect against a predominantly continental power controlling resources from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. A land invasion was out of the question until sufficient trained, equipped men had been assembled in Britain, total air supremacy achieved and the Red Army had blunted the power of the great German Army. Given available capacity in troopships and freighters, it was always clear invasion could not happen until 1944 – and even that rested on Russia staying in the war and Germany not being able to bomb invasion forces gathering in England. Thus aerial attack was the only British option against Germany before 1944. It provided relief to the Russians, if it could be made effective, and prevented German bombing of Britain. There was no other option.
Harris was not blindly devoted to night time area bombing. He did experiment with daylight raids, such as the famous attack on the MAN U-boat engine works in Augsburg on 17th April 1942. Seven of twelve Lancaster bombers were shot down. It was his observation that such raids cost the RAF great casualties for relatively little result against one factory. By comparison, night raids could seriously hamper production at scores of factories across a whole city. Damage to city infrastructure such as gas, water, electricity and public transport prolonged recovery of production. Contrary to popular impression, very high civilian deaths occurred only during a few specific raids. This was due to firestorm (Hamburg 1943, Dresden 1945) and/or congestion by refugees (Berlin, Dresden 1945). True firestorms occurred just twice in the entire bombing campaign. They were freak events; they were not planned. 99% of RAF bombing raids did not cause firestorms.
The greater effectiveness of area bombing is illustrated by famous raids that took place in the summer of 1943. On the one hand, the American daylight raids against Schweinfurt ball-bearing plant and the Regensburg Messerschmitt plant. On the other hand, the Gomorrah raids by the RAF against Hamburg. The action by the Americans cost the USAF almost a hundred B17 bombers shot down, had limited effect on production at Regensburg and no lasting impact on ball-bearing availability. At such a rate of loss for trivial damage to the enemy, the Americans were not going to achieve very much. They abandoned deep raids into Germany until the P-51 Mustang was available in numbers in the spring of 1944. Even with fighter escort, the Americans failed to make precision bombing work, due to poor visibility. Their bombers operated as high as a modern jet airliner. Try to imagine bombing a little cluster of buildings from such a height, using an advanced, but still optical bombsight, whilst being assailed by nutters in cannon-firing fighters. The Americans also resorted to daylight area bombing, with tragic consequences for Berlin, as we shall see.
The Gomorrah raid on Hamburg by the RAF was devastating – notoriously so, for a reason not anticipated by anybody. It was the first time in history that bombing created such extensive, intense fires that part of the city became a vast, forced-draft furnace. German loss of life was very high, perhaps 45,000 killed (about 2% of the city's population). But 90% of this loss was due to the firestorm. The economic consequences for Germany were also very high, with production across the city falling to near zero and the population fleeing to the countryside. Nazi rule broke down for several days. Hermann Goering was openly jeered by Hamburgers when he toured the rubble. Factory attendances were still far below normal even two months after the raid. In effect, the raid removed the second city of Germany from the war economy, and recovery was prolonged. All this for the loss of about fifty RAF bombers.
In short, Harris and his superiors (including Churchill, who ordered the 1945 Dresden raid) resorted to area bombing because it worked, and because they had no other means to attack Germany's war-making potential. What else were they to do? Nothing? When presented with an enemy as virulently criminal as Naziism?
What to do? Do what the russians did: fight the german arms on the ground front, face-to-face like soldiers should. Use your planes for close air-to-ground support, like the soviet Il-2 Sturmovik and the Typhoon did. The opening of the second front (anglo-saxon landing in France) was intentionally delayed by two years in order to cause as much blood loss to USSR as possible, so USA+Britain can become new world masters unopposed. Meanwhile carpet bombing was a cowardly way to wage terror war on german populations and a cheap excuse not to join the russians in fighting the GERMAN ARMED FORCES on land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that attacking civilians is criminal. This raises a basic moral dilemma that Harris's detractors have never addressed. The only option available to the Allies was to commit criminal attacks against civilians. Yet not to act against a criminal regime, when they had the means to do so, was out of the question. No one can be happy with what RAF Bomber Command did between 1942 and 1945, but would we be any happier had our leaders done nothing? Or wasted the RAF in a futile devotion to “decent” precision daylight bombing?
Let us finish with an American raid on Berlin that is now forgotten. On 3rd Feb 1945 the USAF attacked Berlin in daylight but, anticipating poor visibility, an area bombing pattern was carried out. The city was crowded with refugees. More than 25,000 people died in that raid, yet to this day the USAF is considered to have fought a “clean” war against Germany. Two weeks later, 40,000 to 50,000 died at Dresden. This was the second great firestorm of the war. It occurred in mid winter, hardly conditions for such a ferocious reaction. The RAF attacked scores of other cities with a similar bombing mix, including wooden ones like Luebeck, without causing firestorms. It was a freak tragedy, following a decision made by exhausted minds, and it should be seen as such. Regrettably it was not seen as such. Although Churchill had ordered the raid, a few weeks later he sent his now-famous letter to Harris, in which he distanced himself from the bombing campaign that he had supported all along. This stands as one of the very few question marks against Churchill's integrity. It is plausible that Harris's reputation today would be as intact as that of Curtis LeMay, had Churchill not betrayed him.

Very well put- this post pretty much sums up the whole bombing dilemma Harryurz 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "firestorm" has become an overused and often incorrect term for many large and destructive conflagrations in WW2- it is however a very specific phenomena and needs several specific conditions to occur; conditions the bombing forces could not control with any certainty or deliberation Harryurz 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They could not control the conditions necessary for creating the phenomenon of "firestorm", not with any certainty, but they most certainly tried to do it with deliberation. The effects of the area bombing of German cities were studied closely, starting with Lübeck; the phenomenon of the firestorm was discovered, the physical conditions were analyzed and one sought to reproduce the effect systematically. This fact was acknowledged even in some British publications as early as 1971 when I studied at an English university. I also remember reading a paperback published by a respected newspaper that argued: 1.) The main objective of many of the air raids was to hit the German work force, i. e. to kill civilians by the thousands, thereby demoralizing the German population. 2.) Although not only thousands, but hundreds of thousands of civilians were indeed killed or maimed, the demoralizing effect was surprisingly little. It was mainly the inefficieny of the terror bombing (as it was openly called even in contemporary newspaper articles) in this respect that led to second thoughts about it in the cabinet.141.91.129.2 11:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The initial attempts to start firestorms were German see the 29 December raid and the Coventry Blitz for early examples. Indeed Bomber Harris credits the Germans with pioneering most of the techniques. Also see the dehousing memo "Investigation seems to show that having one's home demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed." They were targeting housing not people. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Harris primary topic

At present if you type "Harris" into the wikipedia search box you are taken to the Isle of Harrises entry! As there are many uses of the word Harris it has been proposed to change this so that when you type "Harris" you are taken to the Harris (disambiguation) page instead.

If you support/oppose this move or have any comments please add your input to the Harris Talk page.

Thanks --WickerWiki (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Churchill

Churchill initaied and carried out this policy. Churchill is responsible for Dresden. It was he that order the strike on the city, not Harris. He tried to blame Harris, but historical documents show otherwise. If Churchill had not existed, there would have been no bombing of Dresden. If Harris had not existed, the outcome would probably have meant more German cities would have faced the same fate. Wallie (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is too simplistic view. After the return from the tactical bombing of France for the Normandy landings, Bomber Harris was an ardent supporter of area bombing of Germany instead of targeted bombing. If Harris had been given access to ULTRA his views may have been different, but he was not (strange!). By late 44 most Harris's superiors in the RAF were by and large in favour of target bombing, the directives to Harris shows this. Harris choose to obey the letter of the directives as they gave his some discretion to bomb area targets but he pushed that as far as he could without actually disobeying orders. The type of bombing was not generally seen as a moral issue in the Air ministry but a technical issue of how the bomber force could be used to the most effect. The decision to area bomb was taken for technical reasons, and by late 44 many in the air ministry considered that targeted bombing would be a better use of resources.
Churchill had his own views, and he may have supported Harris's views over those of Portal for example, but one would need to produce documentary evidence of this, as there were a number of layers of command between Churchill and Harris. For example when Churchill sent his first memo about Dresden, Harris was told of its content but he was not given sight of it and his famous "[Dresden] is now none of these things" was in response to the memo but not a direct response because he was too low down the food chain to be directly involved in the discussion.
In my opinion to say that "Churchill is responsible for Dresden." is just as wrong as saying "Harris was responsible for Dresden." The records clearly show that many people and organisations were involved in a collective decision to bomb Dresden.
One of the important points to consider is that the Bomber Campaign was like the Battle of the Atlantic, a war of attrition where such things as statistical analysis and the new discipline of Operational Research played a very big part in the decisions of how to conduct the campaigns. Eg the use of Bomber streams and the decision to armour planes no only where returning planes had the most damage and where they were least damaged, is an example of making decisions based on statistical analysis. Similarly the decision on whether or not to switch to area bombardment was taken because of statistical analysis and not moral decisions (indeed the morality of the issue does not seem to have been any part of the decision to within the War Office -- and only a handful in Parliament seemed to have had any moral qualms over bombing German cities). See the article on the Butt Report for more details. --PBS (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

An edit conflict occurred recently when two editors were simultaneously trying to revise the article. I have adopted a consistent Harvard Citation style for notes and citations and a MLA Style (Modern Language Association) style for bibliographic notations/records that is used for academic works in the social sciences. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

date contradiction: retirement

"However, Harris was made Marshal of the Royal Air Force in 1946 [...] He retired on 15 September 1945."

Is this a mistake? brain (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily is the best I can do without actually trawling thrugh the London Gazette to double-check, Marshal of the RAF, Field Marshal and Admiral fo the Fleet are sometimes treated more like honours than actual susbtantive ranks (though they are that also). David Underdown (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I was pleased to see that reference has been made to Mierzejewski's book but disappointed that its somewhat outmoded conclusions were not compared with Tooze 'The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy', particulary over the Battle of the Ruhr and Mierzejewski's untenable bias toward US day bombing.Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Page one

Shouldn't this article really be entitled: "Arthur Travers Harris", perhaps with a redirect from Bomber Harris? Bill 14:47, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The title is the least of the POV problems. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:49, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hard to judge, really. The content seems to change from minute to minute. Bill 14:51, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To the person who keeps on inserting bits about Apartheid: the Apartheid regime started in 1948, Harris moved there in 1946. If you think he's a git, surely the carpet bombing of civilians (bad) suffices, over-egging the pudding by adding irrelevant associations with Apartheid (also bad, but not relevant here) does not help your argument. -- The Anome 13:11, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the phrase about gas bombing. According to the sources I could find, while some gas was used by the British to suppress Iraqi insurgents, it was not air-dropped, as it could not be done effectively. Use of gas was produced through shelling. SpeakerFTD 14:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Rewrote the second sentence of the last paragraph to clarify it and to remove to obvious anti-Harris POV. Here's the pre-revision last sentence:

However, defenders of Harris claim that he was responding to the German policy of total war, declared 1943 in the Berlin speech of Joseph Goebbels (being a response to British mass bombardment of German cities started in 1942) and the German use of strategic bombing against Guernica in 1937 (being a response of British bombing of Iraqi tribes in 1932), and later in the Blitz pre-dated the Allied use.

209.149.235.254 19:58, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


The sentence about the majority of the British agreeing with some large quote was clearly not neutral. Most British for sure have never heard of that quote. It is not encyclopedia style to use long quotes rather than concise descriptions. Get-back-world-respect 12:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most of the British who went to the cinema during World War II (which was a large part of the population) would have seen it because it was carried as a news item with him sitting at a table reading it as part of a speech. There was a strong feeling in the war that after the blitz that the Germans should get the same treatment. I think it is an appropriate quote because it sums up the thinking of many people in the UK during the war particularly until late 1944 and the end of the V1 and V2 attacks on the UK. I think that the quote is appropriate because it is an interesting read, It is the text equivalent of a picture and is best thought of as a sound bite. It sums up why so few in Britain at the time thought of area bombing by the British as a war crime and having got their retaliation in, did not wish to hang every German who dropped a bomb on a british terrace. Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you have any opinion poll supporting this or is this just your impression and interpretation? As we both know the answer, I insist a more concise and neutral paragraph is needed in case we want to include the subtopic. As for the other edits you made, killing civilians was already defined as a war crime, so it is misleading to specify that "by modern standards" the bombings were war crimes. Furthermore, the information you added about the government having told him to start the bombings is already implicit in the text before and therefore redundant. You may note that the excuse of "I only executed orders, it was not my fault" was exactly what the Nazi war criminals claimed in Nurmenberg, without any success, as it is obvious that a war crime or a crime against humanity cannot be justified with orders, every individual has its own responsibility. Get-back-world-respect 15:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are nit picking. I added the paragraph on Professor Lindemann and the Cabinet, precisely because if Harris committed a war crime he did so implementing an agreed cabinate policy. Under the UK system of Government this means that all the members of the cabinate are as guilty as he was as all cabinate decisions are always unimous and binding on members. And so, it would follow, were all the members of RAF bomber command. Why single him out? I personally do not think that RAF bomber command committed a war crime and as there was never a trial, all one can have on the issue is personal point of view. So any mention of the subject of Harris being a war criminal in the article on Harris is POV.

I can not prove that the majority of British people agreed with Harris's statment, (although pound for a penny they did, and I do not have access to any WWII surveys which indicate that most agreed with bombing German Cities ), so I will rephrase the sentence which introduces the quote to annoy you less. Philip Baird Shearer 17:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits and am not annoyed at all. I furthermore completely agree that we cannot call him a war criminal as there was no trial. It is however important to mention that the intended killing of civilians was a war crime as this is the main point why there is such a debate about the person. And yes I do think that the whole cabinet was guilty of that crime, as are all governments since who engaged and still engage in deliberate bombings of civilians. Unfortunately they usually get away with it. At least nowadays most governments have signed the ICC treaty and it is theoretically possible to trie them at The Hague. Get-back-world-respect 17:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I must say that Löhr Austrian former airforce Commander was shot by Jugoslavia for the Bombing of Belgrad what was compared to the raids of Harris nothing at all. The targeting of civilian population and kulture is clearly a war crime, something else it is if you want to destroy the industrie. The Germans should have bomed Oxford, Greenwitch and Windsor than the British would understand a little bit better what they did against Germany, but in a way against whole of Europe. It was a crime against Europe not against Germany. J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.105.124.6 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Stratigic bombing was not clearly a war cime see Aerial area bombardment and international law. If as you say "it was clearly a war crime" why was Goering not tried for the actions of the Luftwaffe, because Doenitz was tried and found guilty of breaches of international law for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare? Also please see the articles on the Blitz and the Baedeker Blitz in particular. Also Oxford was a major manufacturing town and Greenwich contained major Naval establishments. Also Britain is in Europe. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Gremans have also been bombing European cities. As for Belgrade, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was officially allied with the axis powers, but the Germans continued bombings of Belgrade five days in a stretch. Löhr's actions saw the death of anywhere between 2500 and 17000 civies. I will not discuss the technicalities of these "insignificant" numbers, but the intention to make war on Yugoslavia was not declared.88.89.69.179 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As for Löhr, he was shot, and therefore spared the humiliation of being hanged. The act of war before making the bother to declare it was the one thing he did not get away from.82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

Thank you for the version of the introduction, much more helpful than constant reverts. I readded crime against humanity as this is the most relevant term given the secretionary interpretation used at Nuremberg. I am not entirely sure whether the following sentence is not misleading: The whole policy of area bombing is a controversial topic and has been suggested as a possible war crime or crime against humanity on the Allies part. It could be misunderstood because it was the Nazis who had started with the slaughter. Get-back-world-respect 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you also think that area bombardment was a crime committed by the Nazis why do you write "has been suggested as a possible war crime or crime against humanity on the Allies part" (my emphasis added)?--Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing a pivotal sentence. Arthur Travers Harris is a highly controversial person and this needs to be addressed in the introduction. As to the war crime, of course both sides of the war are accused of having comitted a crime against humanity with the bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If you have better wording to reflect this, please be bold and edit, but stop deleting vital information. Get-back-world-respect 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I regard it as a gross offense that you continuously remove the crucial information that Harris is a highly controversial person due to the tremendous number of civilian casualties of his actions. There has been discussion about it, you ignore it, there have been people trying to find better wording, you just remove. Please be aware that this is not "your" article, Philip Baird Shearer. Get-back-world-respect 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
From the top listed google articles: One of the most controversial figures of World War Two dubious merits, controversial strategy of mass destruction publicly villified as a war criminal, and in disgrace he left the country to reside for a time in South Africa. Just here this man is to be described as if he had done nothing to be concerned about? Get-back-world-respect 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That he was a contriversial person and two reasons why he was a contriversial person is now included in the introducton. That people think that area bombardment was contiversial and some think it might have been a war crime or crime against humanity, is unsourced and not directly relevent to the introduction of this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed "controversial" does not need to be doubled. Being controversial is however euphemist for an alleged war criminal. Get-back-world-respect 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

GBWR You may think "controversial is however euphemist for an alleged war criminal" but it ain't necessarily so: It is possible that his actions were controversial, for the reason given that not all in the Allied high command thought it as effective as going after oil. His acceptance of high rates of RAF casualties in the Battle of Berlin is also controversial. His views were also controversial for moral (not criminal) reasons. For example adultery is not a criminal offence but it is not something that politicians in the English speaking world like to admit to doing. The BBC source you gave earlier in this section says this: "But the debate about the morality - and indeed efficacy - of the bombing raids was already under way in the closing stages of the war". It was not his strategy, he implemented the strategy so if you wish to state that bombing was a war crime or a crime against humanity then you need to provide sources, not just private opinions (were it is often used as a moral judgement not a legal one), but references to legal arguments that bombing was a crime during World War II just as this one, published in the International Review of the Red Cross, says that it was not:

In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.[8]

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that user:getbackworldrespect has been deleted. Did he emigrate to South Africa? If that was a controversial thing to do, is user:getbackworldrespect a war criminal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

bronze statue of Harris

Please give a source for the Official German Government complaint. Philip Baird Shearer 01:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be honest I have not yet found it again. This is a new one, but it does not mention the German government explicity: "Am 31. Mai 1992 wurde das Standbild von der Königinmutter enthüllt, gegen Protest in Großbritannien wie in Deutschland und ohne Vertreter der britischen Regierung. Zeitweise bewachten Polizisten die Statue rund um die Uhr, weil sie immer wieder besprüht wurde." ("On May 31 1992 the statue was unveiled by the Queen Mum, against protet in Great Britain as well as in Germany, and without a member of the british government. For some time policemen guarded the statue 24/7 as it was sprayed with graffitis time and again.") Get-back-world-respect 15:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The church is an RAF church. If permission was needed for erecting a statue outside the church, permission would (possibly) be needed from the Malcolm Rifkind, the new Secretary of Defence just a few days before. Not from the german Government. Not from the neo nazis in the new states of Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.69.179 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the Netherlands needs permission from Germany for having a decent defence policy. Or perhaps for owning the ABC islands? Does anyone know the name of Germanys current Defence Minister?--83.108.28.91 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lengthened the war.

One particular aspect of Harris is that his actions most probably lengthened the war significantly. The brutality of 1000-strong bomber fleets leveling cities convinced German citizenry that Anglo-Saxons were monsters and there can be no compromise, it "them or us". So they supported Hitler to the very end and even beyond (werewolves), hoping that wunderwaffe will destroy the allies.

If the Anglo-Saxon used only accepted means of targeting clearly undisputed military and war-economy targets unrelated to residential centers, then the German population could objectively realize the might of Anglo-Saxon war power and stop backing Hitler, so a military coup backed by popular uprising could end the war in late 1943 or 1944, save millions of lives and stop communist military advance at the original soviet-Russian border.

This was not possible since German people were subjected to "Stockholm syndrome" via terror bombings of Harris.

Therefore, Harris with his terror campaign is actually responsible for lengthening the war and causing the 50-year post-WWII division of continental Europe with all horrors of communism east of the Iron Curtain.

Sorrowfully the current Wikipedia article is very lopsided, it addresses none of the war crime and war lengthening aspects of Harris. 82.131.210.162 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these your own ideas or do you have a reliable source which can be used to improve the article? If the former then there is no point discussing it, as this talk page is here to discuss ways of improving the article and original research is not allowed in articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did the blitz on London weaken the spirit of the British nation to continue the war against Nazi Germany? In a similar manner the attacks on residential areas in Germany and Austria increased the determination of many Germans to keep on fighting - for a lost cause. 00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)ontologix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix (talk • contribs)

--
I _never_ thought of that. I believe that then, as today, technology makes it impossible for a population to overthrow any 1st world entrenched government. Phones, rail, roads and fast transport give any half-way effective ruling entity coordination that would make it impossible for any 1st world population to overthrow anything. Even a 2nd world population failed, i.e.: Iraq when 1st Bush said "overthrow Saddam" and 250,000 people and some few army units acted were in the end reacted to, crushed, and then rounded up and shot into mass graves. It was central command combined with troop radio's, phones, and trucks that took them out. Less than a brigade of loyal Iraq troops were used (~5,000) OR EVEN NEEDED.

That opinion written, there is truth in SOME of what User:82.131.210.162|82.131.210.162 wrote: Speer wrote later, that area bombing actually confounded him and Hitler. Sure, he said "six more and the war will be over" but that was when the war was lost in his opinion, so please remember nothing can be interpreted without context OR temporal assessment. About Dresden, he wrote, that the labor shortage in U-boat and munitions factories ended as thousands swarmed for employment because all the cafe's, stores, and other civilian industries and businesses were blown up and since he could still offer rations to them, they swarmed to those WAR industries.

And haven't we learned by now, the more you hurt/bomb anyone, not targets, the more you goad them? Hanoi never really tettered, in spite of the tonnage dropped on it. It wasn't the fact USA utterly did destroy the infrastructure, they did. Only now you have the most incredible, powerful and creative creatures on earth, humans that is, willing, wanting and supporting anyone or anything that is against that which hurt them. They got quite good at rebuilding, adjusting and modifying how they did things- in the end bombing was no longer worth it in aircraft losses and was a factor...that bombing was halted... that and other reasons of course.

In the end, Speer wrote it was the American precision bombing that broke them if anything (as well as many other factors). Also, remember chaos rules in human wars, in this case the Allies at best were bumbling as often competent (Italy, Arnhem, I could go on), poorly coordinated with split objectives, their leaders very territorial and jealous of each other, the interfering Hitler and overwhelming numbers and capacity that defeated the Nazi forces, as well as other reasons we would be hard pressed to believe as well. "Butcher" Harris? Can't really say for sure, my opinion of him was he was a one trick egocentric personality who had a viable plan in the right time and place but should of evolved, thank goodness that we did use area bombing of MILITARY TARGETS that closed the Normandy battle! katyzone@yahoo.com ---

the American precision bombing that broke them - Speer seemed to say whatever he thought his guests wanted him to say. As for the US bombing, the small sizes of the bombs dropped and the relatively smaller tonnage (despite what the seemingly massaged Wiki figures show) meant the US raids often caused only minor damage. As an example, the USAAF bombed the Krupps works at Essen several times and the damage was only slight, such as blowing in most of the windows in the factories, etc. The RAF then bombed the same target and according to German eyewitnesses, the devastation was so great that in one case, a heavy industrial lathe was later found nearly a kilometer away. According to one source, after seeing the damage Herr Krupp suffered a stroke, from which he never recovered. In the TV programme The World at War Speer said in an interview something like that if the RAF raid on Hamburg had been repeated on three or four other targets the war would have ended, as Germany could not have gone on, so selective quoting of Speer is unwise.
With the greatest respect to the brave USAAF airmen who flew the US operations, the US bombing of Germany was 'puny' compared to what the RAF did, and it is interesting to see the revision of history on Wikipedia to infer that the USAAF bombing was anything but. The figures given for the bombing of Dresden illustrate this, where the B-17 tonnage figures work out a something like 2 & 1/2 tons per-aircraft, a figure considerably greater than they were able to carry to Berlin, itself something like 125 miles closer to the East Anglian airfields than Dresden was. To carry the tonnages quoted on Wikipedia they would have had to have left the guns, armour, and most of the crews behind because of the extra fuel required - see MTOW. As a rule, the RAF reduced the armour and guns carried (to increase the bombloads) whilst the USAAF had to do the reverse, i.e., adding more guns and armour because of the increasing ferocity of the Luftwaffe attacks against their formations, reducing US bombloads even further.
The normal B-17 load carried to Berlin was in the order of 4000lb, (3,500-4000lb according to airfield distance from target) and the realistic figures I have seen for Dresden are 1,500/1,600lb-per B-17. As a rough guide, the RAF sent out its bombers carrying three times the load, three times as often, and in three times the numbers. The USAAF probably had more bombers later in the war but they were unable to use them in greater numbers than about 300, as the combat boxes took too long to form before setting out to the target, this eating into the fuel reserves of the aircraft that took off first, and so limited the number taking part in raids. IIRC, there were a couple of 600-aircraft raids put on by the USAAF late in the war when defensive tactics were less important, but 300 was the average number. The RAF could easily put 700/800 Lancasters on a target by 1943/44. As a rough guide, the bomb tonnages dropped on Germany by the RAF in 1944 alone were greater than the USAAF's total tonnage for the entire war. The total dropped on Germany by the RAF between 1939-1945 was greater than the USAAF tonnage dropped between 1941-1945 on both Germany AND Japan combined.
There was also the weather, as the RAF was an 'all weather' force, whereas the USAAF was not. Provided its aircraft could taxi to the end of the runways, the RAF could launch raids, the only other weather condition that mattered was the conditions (i.e., fog) on the return home, and that became less important with the introduction of FIDO. At the time, teaching a pilot to fly in IFR (at night or bad weather) required roughly as long again as teaching him/her to fly in the first place, therefore doubling the time it takes to train a pilot. Because of the rush of the US's entry into the war, night flying training was only given to specialised groups, e.g., night fighter pilots, and was not the norm. In contrast, every RAF pilot was given IFR training to qualify him for night and bad weather flying, right from the beginning of the war in 1939.
For the USAAF therefore, good weather was vital, both for VFR flying and to navigate-to, and identify the target, and as anyone who has lived in, or visited Europe, can tell you, the weather over most of Europe is very variable, especially in Winter - more often than not, the weather is poor, with limited visibility, sometimes for days on-end, sometimes for weeks. Although the USAAF had alternate targets to allow for bad weather, the weather conditions were often bad over BOTH targets, and resulted in bombers effectively jettisoning their loads anywhere, or worse, bombing the wrong country, e.g., Schaffhausen.
The USAAF's contribution to the bombing of Germany was important and should not be forgotten but it was hardly decisive, and the attempts by a few US historians and some Wikipedia contributors to minimise the RAF's effect on the winning of World War II, over-emphasizing the USAAF's, is somewhat at-variance with the majority of the reputable publications that have dealt with the subject in the past forty years, and in itself, makes for an illuminating insight into the less desirable aspects of Nationalism, something that is rampant here on Wikipedia.
As regards Harris' implementing of the Cabinet's bombing policy, it was one of the few things that brought home to the German People the consequences of their election of Hitler and his National Socialist Party, and it is perhaps a fair but unkind remark to make that the average German 'man in the street' only came to recognise the grave mistake in electing Hitler when he/she was forced to live in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.115.48 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone did lengthen the war, and that was the Germans who never "grew more supportive of Hitler". These factoryworkers already were supportive of Hitler. War could not be shortened if someone would disestablish the RAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If Gauleiter Mutschmann had made better preperations, he too could have lengthened the war. This gentleman (well he is immune to critisism....?) insisted that Dresden should publicly mourn the death of Hitler, and he insisted on establishing a new eastern front. Eventually, the Soviets did not feel like shooting Mutschmann. They believed that hanging was in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice in opening paragraphs

In light of the implied sins of omission on the parts of Harris (for not relying on improved targeting methods) and his superiors like Churchill (for not ordering Harris to rely on improved targeting methods), the British manner of passive voice creates some confusion with the closing phrase "nor were there serious misgivings about the campaign expressed at the time." Precisely who is being charged with failing to express misgivings? Churchill? Harris? Both? This statement seems to be an indirect defense of somebody for lacking the perspective of hindsight and post war qualms about dropping as few as possible bombs on civilians. If so, perhaps this non-expression of "serious misgivings" ought to be moved to a spot lower down on the page. At the least a it would leave the reader with less ambiguity if the selection were reconstructed to read "no prominent persons at the time expressed misgivings..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.223 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it's Harris being criticized, it was meant to ref to his bosses, Portal & Churchill, as well as HMG more broadly. (I know, I wrote it.) It's not "an indirect defense of somebody for lacking the perspective of hindsight", it's suppsed to be a defense of Harris for doing as he was told by seniors who didn't see things terribly differently than he did at the time, from attacks by those who have the benefit hindsight & seem to think all those mentioned should have, too. Obviously, it needs to be clearer... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Harris 'didn't rely on improved targeting methods'? Really??Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
He actively resisted the introduction of Pathfinder crews, frex. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To avoid invidious distinctions not indifference about accuracy. What about Oboe, H2S, Gee, G-H, Mandrel, Airborne Cigar, Village Inn blah, blah....Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you can reliably source Harris not being opposed, indifferent, or ignorant of technical improvements (ignorant, I'd doubt, based on the theory Monica jammed non-existent German searchlight guidance radars), I invite you to change it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Caen Material Misattributed to Arthur Harris

The General Harris celebrated in Caen is not Arthur Harris, but rather Ian Harris who took a leading part in the liberation of the town, and later married a local woman. He was not a general at the time of the liberation, but had an illustrious later career.

His obituary is available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-ltgen-sir-ian-harris-1087101.html There is a short wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Harris_(British_Army_officer)

The existing supporting reference in the article refers to Ian Harris, rather than to Arthur Harris.

I'm not going to get into editing this myself, but perhaps someone with a good record on Wikipedia can do the minimal checking required, and delete the relevant paragraphs. 86.41.24.135 (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Me again. Nothing has happened, and no comments, so I'm going to try deleting. 86.41.24.135 (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your first comment somehow, and also despite a conversation with the editor who originally added the information at the time, I missed the reference to Ian. David Underdown (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you David. 86.41.24.135 (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Honours

An LLD degree is listed in the Honours section without mention of awarding university - worth mentioning, there might have been more than one university awarding it.Cloptonson (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The bibliography of this article omits perhaps the most important reference of all: "Bomber Harris" Author Dudley Saward ISBN 0-385-11258-0. This is the authorised biography of Harris, published by his request posthumously. It contains fact, not speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malformationism (talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

IIRC Dudley Saward was an RAF Group Captain who also wrote an excellent biography of Bernard Lovell.

Oil

The article makes the odd claim: 'The American Official History notes that Harris was ordered to cease attacks on oil in November 1944,' supposedly because the job was done. Either the US official historians Craven & Cate are wrong (quite possible), or the author citing them, Peter Grey, is wrong, or the editor's misunderstood something. As Martin Middlebrook & Chris Everitt explain in The Bomber Command War Diaries (Midland 1996, p.566), a 25 September directive to Bomber Command and Eighth Air Force gave oil as the highest priority. (Rail and waterways were second, tank and vehicle production third, with cities only when 'weather and tactical conditions are unsuitable for operations against primary objectives.') This was followed up by an Air Staff memo to Harris on 1 November: 'Sir, I am directed... to inform you that, in view of the great contribution which the strategic bomber forces are making by their attacks on the enemy petroleum industry and his oil supplies, it has been decided that the maximum effort is to be made to maintain and, if possible, intensify pressure on this target system.' (Middlebrook & Everitt cite the British official history, Sir Charles Webster & Noble Frankland, The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany, HMSO 1961, Vol.IV, pp.172-3, 177-8.) That was the memo on which Harris famously scribbled, 'Here we go round the mulberry bush.' But his views didn't matter, and despite the weather he carried out oil attacks on most days and many nights throughout November and on into April 1945. His crews eventually dropped 50% more tonnage on oil targets than the US Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces combined, about 64,000 to 43,000. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I want to homogenise the citation style and I want to do it by linking the short citations to references in the references section using templates. Does anyone have a problem with me making these changes? -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 10.170|talk]]) 14:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC))

It looks fine to me as it is. Dormskirk (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Major in the RAF?

You say He finished the war a major.

Are you sure there was such a rank as Major in the R.A.F. in 1918?
Presumably he was promoted to Major while it was still the Royal Flying Corps - a part of the army, before it became the RAF in 1918. (Hohum @) 01:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Then it would be incorrect to say that he finished the war as a major. Perhaps an expert might fix this. Valetude (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
He was promoted to temporary major in the RAF on its formation on 1 April 1918 and then to squadron leader on 1 August 1919 (see [9]). So the statement is correct as currently drafted. Dormskirk (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Dormskirk. Further investigation reveals that the rank of Squadron Leader was not created until August 1919. So the answer to my original question would be 'Yes, there was such a rank as Major in the RAF in 1918'. Valetude (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DRESDEN

Other estimates are much higher than the 25,000 figure given in this article, because there were thousands of uncounted refugees in the city from the east who had not been included in any official census or counts prior to the bombing. This article should mention the official telegram from the mayor of Dresden on the day after the bombing, discovered by historian David Irving, which specifically mentions that 50,000 are are "unaccounted for." To not include this evidence in this article cannot be justified.Starhistory22 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

David Irving is discredited. Some 35,000 were reported missing after the raid, of whom 10,000 were later found to be alive. Four weeks after the bombing, the SS Order of the Day Nr 47 gave a total of 20,204 bodies recovered so far. (This was leaked to the neutral press by Goebbels' propaganda ministry with a zero added to give 202,040.) The city authorities made great efforts to count the dead and the police report by the Reich chief of the Ordnungspolizei on 22 March 1945 gave a figure of 22,000 known dead with an estimate of the final number at 25,000. In 1993 a record was found in the city archives showing the total known dead by the end of April 1945 as 21,271. From May 1945 until 1966 only a further 1,858 bodies attributable to the bombing were discovered. Very few have been found since then and none at all since 1989. In 2010 an official inquiry on behalf of the city authorities confirmed 25,000 as the likely upper limit. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Collateral Damage & Civilian Casualties The Goal; Industrial Targets a Bonus

Here is an interesting quote made by Bomber Harris and seems to confirm a basic hunch I had about the guy: "I want to point out, that besides Essen, we never actually considered any particular industrial sites as targets. The destruction of industrial sites was always some sort of bonus for us. Our real targets always were the inner cities."
Essentially, he effectively admitted that the objective was to commit mass destruction, mass-murder, and terrorism; any industrial targets that got taken out were simply dumb luck except for Essen evidently. Harris seemed as I understand it to be a guy who had a real one track mind: Bomb cities, kill lots of civilians, terrorize them and make them so miserable they'll cry uncle, win war. 24.44.68.183 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's simplistic. You can see his rationale in the World at War interviews. Firstly, the level of precision that specifically bombing ONLY industrial targets required, at night, didn't exist for most of the bombing campaign. The famous 617 squadron from 1944 could do this, but they were an elite, specially trained unit. The concept was to destroy cities. Partially "revenge" (or have you forgotten the Blitz, Coventry etc). It was also based upon the idea that destroying the infrastructure of a city would smash the ability to get the workers to the factories. It also caused the Germans to relocate their industrial base. Speer claimed their production figures would have been 3 times as great if it were not so. I don't like area bombing, and much of the bombing campaigns of the World War equate to terror tactics, but a) the aim wasn't just to frighten people and kill civilians, it was to disrupt production (destroying a city and transport infrastructure is arguably more effective than dropping bombs on a factory) b) whilst Harris was an advocate of strategic bombing, he didn't invent the concept, nor is he responsible for it being adopted as policy by the War Cabinet. Harris simply didn't believe that his force was able to target individual factories reliably enough, so he didn't target them. Late in the war they did, including oil facilities. But in '42, '43 and indeed much of '44 he was probably right. Which is why the USAAF persisted with daylight raids. We should shrink from the fact he advocated bombing, but we should be clear why he did so, and not try to make him some sort of scapegoat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As I commented on other pages there was nothing stopping the German government from evacuating their cities, and if this had been done then RAF BC would not have been able to hurt or kill their populations. Blaming Harris and RAF BC for doing this seems a bit silly when just about everyone else - whether by accident or design - was doing the same. Perhaps what the critics dislike about Harris and RAF BC is that while other countries air forces tried to bomb the c**p out of their enemies and failed, the Harris and the RAF succeeded, such that much of Germany was literally a pile of ruins by 1945.
The other point is that most of the people complaining about the bombing of Germany were not there at the time, and in fact most reasonable decent Germans who were thought that they had only got what they deserved, horrible as it may have been. No one asked Germany to invade Poland in 1939 - certainly the British didn't. Most of the criticism of Harris and RAF BC has only surfaced in the last few decades when memories have started to fade of the vile, despicable, things the Nazi leadership of 1933-1945 did.
The policy of area bombing wasn't Harris', it had been decided upon when Pierce was CO Bomber Command, and it was carried out through to the end of the war simply because it was a way of seriously hurting Germany, both in its will to continue the war, as well as it's means of production. Put simply, it left the German people in no doubt about the inadvisability of following a man like Hitler, and also gave them visible proof that war was not going to be all victory parades and marching bands. As Harris himself said of Area Bombing, "For want of a rapier, we used a bludgeon".
And if Germany had made peace or surrendered in 1941 due to the bombing of German cities, perhaps due to Hitler's government being deposed by more reasonable people, what would the critics have said about Harris then. That's all the German people would have had to of done to have stopped the bombing. They didn't, although to be fair to them they did at least try.
BTW, it wasn't 'mass murder' as all the German government needed to do to prevent injuries to its population was to re-locate them elsewhere, if only temporarily. They didn't do this because all the armament factories were in the big cities, so German armament production would have been halted. You can't 'murder' people if they are not there to be 'murdered'. The German government and people had a choice whether to move out of the cities or not, see, the British weren't stopping them.
The other thing of course is that most of Harris' and RAF BC's post-war critics haven't had Nazi aeroplanes overhead trying to kill them. Well Harris had, in 1940 he had stood on the roof of the Air Ministry building Adastral House, and watched the fires as London burned. It was then that he said to a companion " ...they are sowing the wind" *.
In 1940-41 London was the most heavily-bombed place on earth, a fact that Nazi newspapers such as the Völkischer Beobachter delighted in gloating over, and it is fair to say that from around 1940-on the average Briton hated and loathed both Germany and the Germans, and it says a lot for the tolerance and civilised behaviour of the British that they rapidly forgave both after 1945. Not all though, IIRC that kind, decent, and humane comedian Michael Bentine would not enter a lift with a German of any kind post-war because he did not trust himself with one. But then he was at Belsen with the camp's liberators.
Harris and RAF Bomber Command made a substantial contribution to ridding the world (and indeed Germany) of Hitler and his Nazi regime, and nothing critics and revisionists might like to think or say changes that.
* In other words, be careful what bad things you do to others when you are on the up, as these bad things may later come back to you a thousand times worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland in 1939 - Britain only declared war on Germany. The Blitz happened because the British had already bombed Germany since May 1940. (Xsjsk (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC))
The Soviet Union moved in to Poland and took over areas that had already been conquered by Germany. Little of this was known in the West at the time because Hitler and Stalin's agreement to allow for this was secret.
The RAF bombed Wilhelmshaven in 1940 which was a German naval base. They didn't start bombing German cities until well into the Battle of Britain/The Blitz, in part due to the Luftwaffe (mistakenly) bombing housing in London's East End while aiming for the London Docks.
The Area Bombing policy was referred-to as 'de-housing' and was intended to destroy the housing used by the industrial workers so giving the German government, in addition to the industrial disruption caused, due to most of the armament and other war factories being within the same general area, the added strain on resources needed to re-house and feed these workers. Simply killing the workers would not have had as much effect on German resources. This RAF policy was based on the (mistaken) assumption that the Nazi Government would do for its people the same as the British Government had done for its people earlier, and evacuate the non-essential personnel from the cities. That Hitler and his leadership did not do this was no fault of the RAF or of the British.
It was the Nazi government's responsibility to look after the safety of its citizens, and the RAF had been dropping millions of leaflets telling the German population exactly what it was going to do to the German cities for at least two years prior to 1943-44. As it turned out, Hitler and his regime gassed more German citizens than the RAF killed.
Both the Luftwaffe and the RAF had bombed cities and towns by day prior to 1941 however the targets in these cities and towns had been legitimate factory targets producing munitions and other war materiel. After the bombs fell on housing in London docklands however the British stopped aiming at particular targets and from then on simply bombed the general area containing the target(s). This was also a result of the difficulty in identifying the individual targets, which were by then being attacked at night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Harris/Archive_1&oldid=1180181881"