[Streaker]

$1:

Bomber Command's bombing of Second World War civilians was wilful murder

By Christopher Howse
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 01/11/2008


Sacred Mysteries


A London clergyman, Canon Mark Oakley, recently met by chance a man in Dresden whose mother had been killed on the same night that the Canon's grandfather had flown over the city.

He recounted the incident in a letter to this paper on Thursday. "And now we shall shake hands," the German had said. "We must make sure that neither my mother nor your grandfather are forgotten."

This is moving and right. We should honour the brave men, so many of whom sacrificed their lives for their country, who served in Bomber Command. The Daily Telegraph supports a campaign for a memorial to them, and I applaud it.

At the same time, we must keep our heads clear enough to recognise that some acts that the men of Bomber Command were asked to undertake were wickedly wrong.

It was wrong deliberately to bomb civilian targets. That is wilful murder, a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance, as the Catechism says.

Certainly, the RAF pilots and bomber crews did not decide the strategy. That was the decision of their commanders and the government.

Winston Churchill was not convinced that Germany could be defeated by bombing alone. That was a strategic judgment. He also had doubts about the ethics of area bombing.

"Tonight at Chequers, in the course of a film showing the bombing of German towns," wrote a guest, on June 27, 1943, "Churchill suddenly sat bolt upright and said to me, 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?' "

Perhaps that was just an immediate reaction to a graphic depiction of recent events. Later in the war, on March 28, 1945, Churchill drafted a memorandum saying: "The question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal pointed out next day that the aim of bombing had not been "to terrorise the civilian population", and he redrafted the memorandum at Churchill's invitation, removing references to "terror".

Such discussions tangled together two distinct questions: the effectiveness of area bombing, and its morality. It is easy sitting here now to make unreal judgments about right and wrong.

We must never forget that Britain was engaged in a desperate war against a monstrous enemy, and the nation did not have the benefit of knowing if it would prevail.

Total war could mean that everyone in Britain supported the war effort; but it could not be invoked to permit murder, as the Nazis did. Otherwise, what were we fighting for?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, the Commander-in Chief of Bomber Command, told the Air Ministry in 1943 that "the sentimental and humanitarian scruples of a negligible minority" should be ignored. He was aware that arguments against killing civilians by area bombing were being made. In Britain, thankfully, they could be put openly.

Bishop George Bell of Chichester (portrayed by Philip de Laszlo, below) was for years before the war a vocal opponent of the Nazi regime. He made a forceful speech in the Lords in 1944 (the text of which is easily found at http://www.parliament. uk).

He reminded the nation that, at the outbreak of the war "the Governments of the United Kingdom and France issued a joint declaration of their intention to conduct hostilities with a firm desire to spare the civilian population". The distinction between military and civilian targets was clear.

Against this, Bishop Bell instanced the bombing of Hamburg, modestly estimating the number killed at 28,000. He quoted the question of an eminent French jurist: "If it is permissible to drive inhabitants to desire peace by making them suffer, why not admit pillage, burning, torture, murder, violation?"

An ancient established principle in fighting wars is that the innocent must not be deliberately attacked. By "innocent" is meant those not fighting us: civilians, children, the sick, the old, for example. To seek their deaths would be to embrace the spurious arguments of so-called suicide bombers today.

"Increasing discomfort has been voiced in retrospect about whether the massive raids on German cities by Bomber Command were morally legitimate," wrote General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank and Sir Michael Quinlan in their clear, short study, Just War, published last year.

"The courage of the aircrews - who suffered very heavy casualties - continues to be rightly honoured." Both parts of their verdict should securely be held.

Link

[martin14]

who are you trying to convince with this drivel ?


Are you wearing that white daisy around town, tweaky ?

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

$1:

Bomber Command's bombing of Second World War civilians was wilful murder

By Christopher Howse
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 01/11/2008


Sacred Mysteries


A London clergyman, Canon Mark Oakley, recently met by chance a man in Dresden whose mother had been killed on the same night that the Canon's grandfather had flown over the city.

He recounted the incident in a letter to this paper on Thursday. "And now we shall shake hands," the German had said. "We must make sure that neither my mother nor your grandfather are forgotten."

This is moving and right. We should honour the brave men, so many of whom sacrificed their lives for their country, who served in Bomber Command. The Daily Telegraph supports a campaign for a memorial to them, and I applaud it.

At the same time, we must keep our heads clear enough to recognise that some acts that the men of Bomber Command were asked to undertake were wickedly wrong.

It was wrong deliberately to bomb civilian targets. That is wilful murder, a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance, as the Catechism says.

Certainly, the RAF pilots and bomber crews did not decide the strategy. That was the decision of their commanders and the government.

Winston Churchill was not convinced that Germany could be defeated by bombing alone. That was a strategic judgment. He also had doubts about the ethics of area bombing.

"Tonight at Chequers, in the course of a film showing the bombing of German towns," wrote a guest, on June 27, 1943, "Churchill suddenly sat bolt upright and said to me, 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?' "

Perhaps that was just an immediate reaction to a graphic depiction of recent events. Later in the war, on March 28, 1945, Churchill drafted a memorandum saying: "The question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."

Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal pointed out next day that the aim of bombing had not been "to terrorise the civilian population", and he redrafted the memorandum at Churchill's invitation, removing references to "terror".

Such discussions tangled together two distinct questions: the effectiveness of area bombing, and its morality. It is easy sitting here now to make unreal judgments about right and wrong.

We must never forget that Britain was engaged in a desperate war against a monstrous enemy, and the nation did not have the benefit of knowing if it would prevail.

Total war could mean that everyone in Britain supported the war effort; but it could not be invoked to permit murder, as the Nazis did. Otherwise, what were we fighting for?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, the Commander-in Chief of Bomber Command, told the Air Ministry in 1943 that "the sentimental and humanitarian scruples of a negligible minority" should be ignored. He was aware that arguments against killing civilians by area bombing were being made. In Britain, thankfully, they could be put openly.

Bishop George Bell of Chichester (portrayed by Philip de Laszlo, below) was for years before the war a vocal opponent of the Nazi regime. He made a forceful speech in the Lords in 1944 (the text of which is easily found at http://www.parliament. uk).

He reminded the nation that, at the outbreak of the war "the Governments of the United Kingdom and France issued a joint declaration of their intention to conduct hostilities with a firm desire to spare the civilian population". The distinction between military and civilian targets was clear.

Against this, Bishop Bell instanced the bombing of Hamburg, modestly estimating the number killed at 28,000. He quoted the question of an eminent French jurist: "If it is permissible to drive inhabitants to desire peace by making them suffer, why not admit pillage, burning, torture, murder, violation?"

An ancient established principle in fighting wars is that the innocent must not be deliberately attacked. By "innocent" is meant those not fighting us: civilians, children, the sick, the old, for example. To seek their deaths would be to embrace the spurious arguments of so-called suicide bombers today.

"Increasing discomfort has been voiced in retrospect about whether the massive raids on German cities by Bomber Command were morally legitimate," wrote General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank and Sir Michael Quinlan in their clear, short study, Just War, published last year.

"The courage of the aircrews - who suffered very heavy casualties - continues to be rightly honoured." Both parts of their verdict should securely be held.

Link

Can you debate this or just ape someone else’s opinion?

[Streaker]

Are you willing to debate Christopher Howse, Veggie?

[martin14]

Streaker Streaker:

Are you willing to debate Christopher Howse, Veggie?

i'll take that as a 'no'..

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

Are you willing to debate Christopher Howse, Veggie?

Is he going to be your only leg hump?

[Streaker]

Feel better now?

Now, what about the article?

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

Feel better now?

Now, what about the article?

It’s a journalistic opinion which contains no historical facts. We can start on Dresden if you like. You’re going to need a bit more than blogs and web sites but I’m game

[Streaker]

I take it you're okay with the bombing of Dresden.

[hurley_108]

[saturn_656]

Here's a link to a USAF report detailing how Dresden was a legitimate military target.

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Po ... resden.htm

[Regina]

Streaker Streaker:

I take it you're okay with the bombing of Dresden.

It was a legitimate target that had been on Bomber Commands list for months depending on weather. What do feel the was reason for bombing the city? Do you feel the watch factory shouldn't have been destroued?

[Streaker]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Here's a link to a USAF report detailing how Dresden was a legitimate military target.

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Po ... resden.htm

...and we can all expect the USAF to be balanced and objective about this.

[Streaker]

Regina Regina:

Streaker Streaker:

I take it you're okay with the bombing of Dresden.

It was a legitimate target that had been on Bomber Commands list for months depending on weather. What do feel the was reason for bombing the city? Do you feel the watch factory shouldn't have been destroued?

Being on Bomber Command's list of targets hardly makes it a legitimate one.

Was it necessary to wipe out the city to destroy a watch factory?

[Hyack]

Churchill bombed Dresden as payback for Coventry

$1:

Firebombing Dresden

It is oft repeated that Churchill "ordered" the firebombing of Dresden as a "vicious payback" for the German bombing of Coventry (which Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who's right about Dresden? Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have flattened London and everyone in it.

Apropos Dresden, we referred to Dr. Chris Harmon, a CC academic adviser and professor at the Marine Corps University, Quantico, Virginia, author of the 1991 monograph "Are We Beasts?" Churchill on the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing." The Naval War College Press in Newport, Rhode Island, offers free copies. Call Pelham Boyer at (401) 841-4552, or email [email protected]. You can also download and print a PDF version by clicking here.

Dr. Harmon writes: "Since writing Are We Beasts? I've had a chance to read a few new things on the bombing, and much more on the war. And for what it's worth, I've never been told there's anything wrong with what I've published. So I'll summarize what I know.

"Churchill did not think well of area bombing but began to believe it could be a grim necessity after (1) he watched devastating German air attacks on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and other places full of noncombatants; and (2) he could see precious few ideas for hitting back. In the ever lengthening build-up to Normandy, the bomber offensive was about the best he had to hurt the Germans and their industrial war effort. Later, when he saw France liberated, Germany's defensive lines being pierced, and the war being won, he quickly lost taste for it.

"Churchill's head of Bomber Command, Air Marshal Harris, seemed to think German morale might still be broken by bombing, but Churchill rebuked him after Dresden, and again, just as strongly for bombing Potsdam shortly thereafter. His mind had already turned to how the Allies would govern and occupy Germany; the time for destroying it was passing.

"Harris had none of Churchill's moral qualms about the strategic bombing campaign, or if he did, he hid them well. He created a list of some fifty major target cities, usually selected for their size, war production, or critical location on transportation routes. Harris was grimly working through the list, complaining when the Combined Chiefs 'distracted' him with special targets related to ground campaigns or special interests like oil or U-boat pens.

"Dresden was on another list at Bomber Command - a short list of early 1945 targets that should be flattened to aid the Russian offensive. Churchill had frequently pressed Harris to use his bombers to aid the Russians, but they never talked about Dresden particularly, to my knowledge. It was one of several towns at the right time and place whose bombing would help the Red Army's advance in that sector. Also, John Colville's memoirs record, there had been a report that Axis armor was moving through the town. In short, Dresden was not a vengeance target, but a military one, and one more 'built up area' that was to be destroyed like the others in Germany."

Link