Arthur "Bomber " Harris.....

Fiction, movies, alternate history, humor, and other non-research topics related to WWII.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Jan-Hendrik wrote:Sorry Andre , but I think you are misunderstanding me totally .

I do not justify anything , from our humanistic point of view that had been all extremly terrible , but , if we want to judge about Terror bombing or war crimes we cannot take those standarts for judgement . That does not work and that would be what you labeled as "double standard" .

That can only be done by critical analysis of what hat happened , what was ordered and what were the standards of warfare in that particular time

And , yes , if we are following your point of view Dresden would have been one of the largest war crimes of WW2 . But I think that would go to far , or simply , it would take too much time to elaborate the escalation of air warfare in WW2 , as much as this has been already done by the experts .

Jan-Hendrik
Jan, I agree in part with what you are saying. I personally don’t view the Allied bombing campaign as a war crime, although I believe it was a crime against humanity judged by today’s standards.

I think your comment…
There were 2 Btl. in the city and other 23 Btls on the way to Guernica . Richthofen got the order to prevent their retreat . So he did , yes , not concerning much about possible civil casualities , but who did , especially in Spanish civil war .
…infers that you believe Guernica was a legitimate target for the Luftwaffe to destroy. To state that Richtofen wasn’t concerned with “possible” civilian deaths is also a little disengenious, on your part also. He knew perfectly well that the force he was sending out with the payloads they were carrying, civilian deaths were not a possibility but a certainty, and hence intentional.

My argument is that the ferocity and length of bombing combined with the lack of reconnaissance, and the type and quantity of munitions used, demonstrates that the Luftwaffe intentionally killed civilians.

The argument shouldn’t only be confined to Guernica either. Germany and the Luftwaffe demonstrated throughout the war that they intentionally targeted and killed innocent civilians, starting with the indiscriminate bombing of Polish towns and cities in 1939 through to their use of terror weapons (V-1 and V-2) against the British population in 1945.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

phylo_roadking wrote:


Guernica is one of the most "renowned" but also badly-assessed historical events in modern history. Yes, the Luftwaffe DID bomb a civilian target - the difference between them and the RAF over Cologne or Hamburg was the RAF followed government policy, did their own targeting, and damage and loss assessment. They were totally aware of the target - the working population - and totally aware of the conseuences of their actions. Several of these circumstances did not apply to the Condor Legion at Guernica. Even Spanish primary researchers agree with this.
Phylo,

I think you are on rocky ground now Phylo. Are you honestly telling me that the members of the Condor Legion were unaware that their actions were resulting in killing innocent civilians en masse. I would prefer not to go down the path of appropriating blame to individual Luftwaffe or RAF members, but to claim that somehow the men involved in the attack of Guenica are somehow less culpable than those in RAF raids over Germany is more than a little mischievous.

As I have remarked to Jan, I do not think we should not look at Guernica in isolation. Germany and the Luftwaffe demonstrated throughout the war that they were more than willing to target and kill innocent civilians.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Helmut Von Moltke

What could you do?

Post by Helmut Von Moltke »

about all these war crimes and bombing things mentioned on this thread, one has to remember about the men ordered to do them.

Sit back and think calmly and honestly.

You are a air force crewman, wither British or Anerican or German, and your commanders in chief, (eg Hitler, Goering, Harris) are tough men who kill on the spot.
Your air unit is aked to bomb a town full of innocent civilians.
You know your only choice is: kill them or be killed yourself, or suffer heavy punishment, court martials, and all the other stuff.
What would you do?
Remember, I said think "calmly and honestly..."

The real criminals are in the hierachry, the ones who ordered this. From Goering to his boss Hitler, or Harris or whatever. Remember as well; there are good and bad people in all armed forces of all nations, includign the Luftwaffe and Royal Air Force. But what could they do?

There lies the crucial point.

Regards,

K
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Andre, they may have been aware - but not to the levels that the RAF were aware and involved. There are really major issues over Guernica, and while the Condor Legion may have been an active and knowledgeable participant - throughout the Bomber Command offensive the RAF was not only active in the actual bombing but in ALL levels of the operation. In the Spanish Civil War the German element was large in men and materiel, but small in that they had no role outside the tactical.

Just to say - I'm not an apologist, but I don't like hypocracy. Not referring to you, Andre, but the a lot of what happened during the war, especially on the British side. Not only Dieppe as discussed elsewhere, but - the Dule of Kent, General Sikorsky, the Duke of Windsor, the British peace overtures, Hess - everything. Apart from a few veterans, all the people affected are gone, yet ALL those interesting files remain closed. At a time with a huge question mark hanging over the whole issue of further european integration, surely its time that the british saw exactly what they were - or werent - fighting for. There's still a big piece of British jingoism that deserves to take a hit. The British were in the forefront of deconstructiong Nazi Germany - and I for one would like to see that that WASNT done with any greater element of hypocracy and double standards than we already know. But somehow I don't think I will - the politcal system was different, the society was different - but the war seems increasingly to have been just as dirty from this side.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Kevin, thats the point I was making - the Condor Legion's role in the war suffered for having TWO command channels. It SHOULD work that you have a channel of appeal therefore - but in practice all it means is a second voice telling you "soldier, shut up and soldier!"
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Phylo,

Again, you make some very valid points, although I disagree with your basic premise of individual culpability. You have chosen not mention all sorts of contributory factors. For example the men of Bomber Command were officially at war with Nazi Germany and of course many of their home towns had been bombed by the Luftwaffe. The same can certainly not be said of those members of the Condor Legion. Does that justify everything, certainly not, but we need to keep a perspective.

However, as I have stated before I think we should desist from taking the debate down the road of appropriating levels of blame onto individual members of either air-force. I don't think it would be particularly constructive or add anything to the larger debate.

As for..
but the war seems increasingly to have been just as dirty from this side
..I think that is an argument we should save for another day :wink:

Best regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
User avatar
M.H.
Patron
Posts: 1742
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:00 pm
Location: Berlin

Adolf Galland about Guernica

Post by M.H. »

Adolf Galland
"Die Ersten und die Letzten"
(The First and the Last)
Kapitel: Legion Condor ruft
(Chapter: Legion Condor is calling)

(my translation)
"...In their first month the Condor Bomber got the order to destroy a street bridge which the Reds used to transport war material into the harbor- and industry city Bilbao.
The assault happened under difficult visibility conditions. The pilots were inexperienced, the aiming devices primitive.
As the fog lifted it showed that the bridge was still intact, the near small town was damaged though.
Even if war material from the Reds got destroyed the assignment got counted as a failure.
...
One didn't like to talk about Guernica...the other side all the more."
Even if war material from the Reds got destroyed the assignment got counted as a failure.

For me that doesn't sound like a policy to hurt the civilian population but like a sad error...used by the enemy propaganda...

Which version is true?
Last edited by M.H. on Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Andre, not going down the road of individual liability - but what I think you have here is the good old catholic problem of the sin of ommission vs. a sin of commission.

First thing to say is of course WWII is a different working environment from a civil war - but both are as bloody...a civil war maybe worse because there is no general sense of tactical or strategic aim, jist total victory. Nor being a war of ideology/ religion/ politics/ history is there often any quarter given. Both sides have a total tunnel vision of legitimacy, and ANY means necessary is "right". And the aftermath is usually almost bloodier than the war itself. "Guernica" is a symbol and a name - but who remembers Montracon? And so many others. Franco's crimes against his own people during and after the war are legendary, his reconstrction of Montracon and HIS attempt to wriggle out of Guernica evidence of his being aware of his own culpability.

There WERE a lot of individual airmen who stood up and objected, but a bit like the blackwashing of the WWI soldiers who refused to go over the top and were courtmarshalled, during WWII these flyers just disappeared from their units and their files marked "lack of morale fibre". So there was no general study done as to what percentage cracked from the strain of repeat ops, and how many objected. Does anyone know what happened to those men? They can't ALL have been incarcerated as they would have been in those days for breakdowns.

The other thing is - as mentioned elsewhere - is Harris himself; theres two film clips still in existence of his making those strange recordings that were sent out to Bomber Command stations before the major raids, one buried away in the World At War, and a different one in a two-parter "The Bombing War". These recordings were a matter of some ribaldry to the sirmen they were played to, and hearing the content I can understand why. But the ONE thing thats very noticable is he doesn't mention any industrial target in these recordings - and i'd love to hear the rest of the recordings. Its very clear he's extorting his aircrews to go out and bomb the living sh1t out of the Germans - NOT the target. Amybe a driven man trying to drive others - but the situation either side of the Butt Report deserves consideration. From 1939 to late 1941, Bomber Command carried out the same frequency of sorties - just smaller in number of aircraft - over Germany; in aircraft that were at and often beyond the limits of their performance, that were not overly reliable, that carried small bombloads, and carried very small defensive armaments. Yet at THAT point in the war the crews were made VERY aware that their targets were industrial in the sense of specific factories, harbours, ports, marshalling yards etc. After Butt and Lindeman the aircraft were more capable, target marking was better, navigation to target with first "G" then Oboe was vastly improved, bomb loads were greatly increased....yet there was no intermediate period when the affect of each innovation was studied. There was a total change from one strategy to the other.

Harris COULD at this point have returned Bomber Command to precision targeting - for the now had the technology - but he didnt, he continued with his policy of carpet bombing the working population. IF he had done this, then added to the SAAF's attempted daylight precision bombing - the planned reduction in industrial output MAY have happened.

Oh, remembered something else - regarding the USAAF in the Pacific; I saw an interview a while back with a flyer who had been en route to Tokyo on August 15th in a massed B29 raid; they were "praying they would get the recall, because they didn't want to have to bomb any more Japs". This at a time when the B29 was less than vulnerable to interception, so it was hardly out of a sense of SELF preservation....

If anyone knows or has access to any breakdown of medical records about RAF aircrew withdrawn from ops 1942-45, or knows where I could find it....???
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Re: Adolf Galland about Guernica

Post by Cott Tiger »

M.H. wrote:Adolf Galland
"Die Ersten und die Letzten"
(The First and the Last)
Kapitel: Legion Condor ruft
(Chapter: Legion Condor is calling)

(my translation)
"...In their first month the Condor Bomber got the order to destroy a street bridge which the Reds used to transport war material into the harbor- and industry city Bilbao.
The assault happened under difficult visibility conditions. The pilots were inexperienced, the aiming devices primitive.
As the fog lifted it showed that the bridge was still intact, the near small town was damaged though.
Even if war material from the Reds got destroyed the assignment got counted as a failure.
...
One didn't like to talk about Guernica...the other side all the more."
Even if war material from the Reds got destroyed the assignment got counted as a failure.

For me it doesn't sound like a policy to hurt the civilian population but like a sad error...used by the enemy propaganda...

Which version is true?
Come of it M.H. that is just clearly apologist claptrap.

There is wealth of historical evidence to prve your argument is utter nonsense. Not least the war doiray of Richtofen.

For starters, why would they the Condor Legion be shovelling incendiary devices out of aircraft if the target was a solitary bridge. Why did the attack consisting of several waves of planes take place over several hours if the target was a single bridge. Why wasn’t there a reconnaissance mission to locate the positionof the bridge.

The following is a translation (by Peter Miller) of part of Chapter 9 of "La Destrucción de Guernica" by César Vidal, regarding the predetermination of the attacks.
If the objectives in Guernica had been strictly military, the Germans should have made a test run which would have allowed them to refine their aim. In fact, an order from Salamanca of 6th January 1937, signed by the Supreme Commander of the Air Force, had already established that in the case of air-raids over built-up areas aim should be precise in order to avoid civilian victims. However, the Germans decided to waive the test run. The decision, incomprehensible if the intention was to hit clearly defined objectives of a purely military character, was perfectly logical if, on the contrary, the plan was to drop their bombs on the town with the principal intention of razing it to the ground.

Premeditation is also suggested by the cargo of bombs that the German Junkers carried. In the case of the 3rd Squadron the ten kilogram devices were removed and replaced by others of 250 and 50 kilograms. The incendiary bombs in the forward bays were also kept. It was perfectly possible that such lightweight bombs (1 kg) could fall on the town, as the Command knew only too well, but they were not ruled out. This circumstance encourages one to believe that, unlike the Italians, Richthofen (who had reached an agreement with Vigón to make Guernica an objective of the Condor Legion) had no scruples against the bombardment of the town.

In fact, the combination of bombs was especially suitable for destroying a town. As Richthofen wrote in his diary, the incendiary bombs formed a third of the total, and the effects of these devices were well known after having seen the results of, for example, the bombardment of the pine forests near the Barázar Pass.

On the other hand, the number of tons (somewhat more than twenty-two) was very high for the entire town of Guernica, and would have been exorbitant for a few limited objectives theoretically situated on the periphery of the town4. In fact, this outrageous disproportion is shown even more clearly when we bear in mind that on the first day of the offensive against Bilbao all the units of the Condor Legion together dropped 66 tons of bombs on the front as a whole 5. At a later date, and perhaps driven by a desire to hide the only possible meaning of such a bomb cargo, the writers of "The War in the North" falsified the number of tons of bombs dropped on Guernica. They stated that there had only been 7·956. The reason is obvious. If a load of such magnitude had been dropped on Guernica the final objective could not have consisted of a few peripheral objectives.

Source: http://www.buber.net/Basque/History/guernica-ix.html
Also try reading some eye witness accounts of the atrocity, easily found using a simple search on Google.

The following site has the original Time report by George Steer the firrt foreign journalist to visit Guernica a few hours after the attack.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 48,00.html

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
User avatar
M.H.
Patron
Posts: 1742
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:00 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by M.H. »

The following site has the original Time report by George Steer the firrt foreign journalist to visit Guernica a few hours after the attack.
Yup...that's what Galland writes about too.
That afterwards loads of foreign journalists were brought in.
The world press were hardly objective at that time!
User avatar
M.H.
Patron
Posts: 1742
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:00 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by M.H. »

PS: I don't want to shove down ones throat one viewpoint or the other...
But if you think about it that the propaganda WWII started much earlier then 1939 and Guernica was made to such a symbol of german maliciousness...why not hear the other side for once too?
Especially as Adolf Galland never was a Nazi but respected by friends and foes alike!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Andre, George Steer's was among the first journalistic record that Vidal knocked down, almost by accident. His is the first report that overinflated the casualty total.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Guys,

I am not naive enough to digest Steers account without due caution. It is merely one of a number of eye-witness accounts of the atrocity and its aftermath.

Phylo, in the original report he states the following about casualties.
It is impossible to state yet the number of victims. In the Bilbao Press this morning they were reported as "fortunately small," but it is feared that this was an understatement in order not to alarm the large refugee population of Bilbao. In the hospital of Josefinas, which was one of the first places bombed, all the 42 wounded militiamen it sheltered were killed outright. In a street leading downhill from the Casa de Juntas I saw a place where 50 people, nearly all women and children, are said to have been trapped in an air raid refuge under a mass of burning wreckage. Many were killed in the fields, and altogether the deaths may run into hundreds. An elderly priest named Aronategui was killed by a bomb while rescuing children from a burning house
Considering the agreed minimum casualty toll is around 1,650, he is hardly exaggerating in this initial report.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

M.H.

Gallands account is clearly nonsense.

There is no mention of poor visibility conditions in any eye-witness accounts. Indeed some eye-witness accounts describes in detail which planes came in which sequence and even describe the type of bombs they relinquished( hardly feasible in thick fog)

As I have stated if Galland’s account is true then why did the bomb payload in terms of weight (more than 22 tons) and type (heavy bombs and incendiaries) indicate a much larger attack and provide enough ferocity to destroy a whole town. This amount and type of munitions would have been ridiculous for a target of one street bridge as claimed by Galland.

Image
Doesn’t look much a like a little accident of missing a solitary bridge to me. Looks more like an intentional attack to annihilate a town and its inhabitants wouldn't you say?

With all due respect to Galland he was talking out of his posterior on this one.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Andre, the amount of damage done at Guernica is because the Condor Legion accidently triggered the first firestorm known from aerial bombardment. They certainly didnt expect to, and no previous experience led them to believe that the like could happen. As for the bomb mix, this was straight out of Douet, all airforces were in those days still in the first stages of experimentation; the anecdote of the JU52s and incediaries indicates something that you have to see beyond the event. The 52 was a transport aircraft that COLD be used as a bomber - but the Dornier Do17s and He111s of that period couldn't drop incendiaries! THIS was how prepared the Condor Legion "wasnt" for the task theyd been given. Same thing goes for the tonnage dropped; this was the first time ANY modern airforce had attacked an urban target, they had no idea about tonnage required so there was a great degree of overkill. THIS is exactly the process the RAF went through from 1939 to 1941, finding that their bombloads were seless in weight and mix, and their aircraft were unsuitable. The TRULY unfortunate things is - where the hell do you try things like this out? The Luftwaffe found out in Spain and Poland, the British found out over Germany. Experimentation like this is NOT right, but WILL always happen - look at the bunfight the Americans had in Gulf War One.

If any, it was again the RAF who had the most experience of bombing between the wars, with their policing actions in Afghanistan, Iraq etc., where most of the senior officers of WWII cut their teeth. BUT what that gave THEM was an inflated idea of what a light bomber cold do, leading to the blind alley of the Fairey Battle.

(George Steer's next accounts filed later in the day are the frantic ones, once he's shown bomb casings with swastikas on them.....at the time of his first report it actually wasn't clear that it was the Condor Legion, the locals thought it was still the Italians, who had bombed the bridge in question earlier in the morning.)
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Post Reply