Merged Winston Churchill a war criminal?

[tomwaits]

Kurt Vonnegut said that only one person benefited from the firebombing of Dresden- himself. He estimated that he made about $5 from every person who was killed that day (presumably from sales of Slaughterhouse Five).

To answer the question in the OP: no.

Vonnegut was a great writer, but not very perceptive on world issues. He tended to be apocalyptic...all the time.

 

[Corsair 115]

I remember reading that in WWII it was the Allies (actually the British) who instigated the bombing raids on cities. Berlin was bombed during a low-point, more as a propaganda exercise than anything militarily useful, and Mein Fuhrer sought retaliation.

The genesis and evolution of the Combined Bomber Offensive is much more complex than that, involving technological and operational limitations as well as competing strategic theories as to what bombing was supposed to accomplish.

The thing to ask those who consider Dresden a war crime is why is Dresden a war crime but apparently Hamburg and Kassel are not? The latter two never seem to get mentioned.

 

[SDC]

When Hitler claimed, in 1943, that the bombing of Rome by the allies was a 'war crime', Churchill told Roosevelt: 'We must take this criticism seriously. It's certainly an expert's opinion'.

If true, that's classic. Please provide the source. Thanks.

 

[SDC]

I remember reading that in WWII it was the Allies (actually the British) who instigated the bombing raids on cities. Berlin was bombed during a low-point, more as a propaganda exercise than anything militarily useful, and Mein Fuhrer sought retaliation.

Cut by me to this one point.

Please advise why widespread bombing of Polish cities by Germany, in September 1939, doesn't enter into this statement. I don't think the British (or anyone) bombed German cities till later.

I find that (always) galling. Somehow, what the Germans did to Poland is frequently ignored in this kind of discussion.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Vonnegut was a great writer, but not very perceptive on world issues. He tended to be apocalyptic...all the time.

Having survived the bombing of Dresden and seeing the destruction afterwards, I'm not to surprised. It is the sort of thing to have that sort of effect on one.

 

[Giz]

Hmmm, given that Churchill was enroute to a conference and Attlee (as deputy PM) approved the target then perhaps it should be "Is Attlee a war criminal?".

(The answer is still no)

 

[Ove]

Chuck Yeager has a wonderfull comment in his Biography. He is referring to some of the missions in the late war where the Fighters were given "Free Hunt" over Germany(Shoot at everything that moves) and at one point he remarks to one of his friends: "If we are going to do these things we better make damn sure we WIN this war".

I dont give s*** for second guessing and this is just that. The desicions Churchill took and for that matter the desicions Roosevelt and Truman took was taken during a war and the rules are a bit different. The bomber offensive was for a long period Britains ONLY way of fighting af the Germans and it was a very good morale booster to the Brits to know that Haris's boys was delivering "the whirlwind", besides how do you think the response had been in 1944 if the allies had invaded a country with a 100% intact industry and infrastructure?

But it WAS the Iatalians in Abyssinia who started "Terror Bombing" and Hitler continued in Spain. Remember the name "Guernica"? Trying to claim that Churchill invented strategic bombing is hype, or at best ignorance..

 

[Corsair 115]

The bomber offensive was for a long period Britains ONLY way of fighting af the Germans and it was a very good morale booster to the Brits to know that Haris's boys was delivering "the whirlwind", besides how do you think the response had been in 1944 if the allies had invaded a country with a 100% intact industry and infrastructure?

The only problem there is Harris himself. By 1945 Bomber Command had the ability to be as nearly as precise attacking at night as the USAAF was attacking in daylight. But Harris was an ideologue who steadfastly refused to accept the idea of precision bombing; he was convinced the only way to bomb and produce results was with area bombing.

He really should have been replaced with a more forward-thinking commander by 1945, but Harris' stature by that time was such that no one was willing to fire him.

 

[SDC]

I think Moon1969 is just trying to throw dirt on Churchill. He has expressed outrage, more than once, that Churchill and Roosevelt didn't stop the Sovs from invading Finland in 1939. Never mind that Churchill wasn't PM (and I believe did try to build support for the Finns as best he could), and the US had no European expeditionary force (and almost no army).

Next we may hear that Churchill drank too much during the war, and Roosevelt philandered. Scoundrels all.

 

[Ove]

I think Moon1969 is just trying to throw dirt on Churchill. He has expressed outrage, more than once, that Churchill and Roosevelt didn't stop the Sovs from invading Finland in 1939. Never mind that Churchill wasn't PM (and I believe did try to build support for the Finns as best he could), and the US had no European expeditionary force (and almost no army).

Next we may hear that Churchill drank too much during the war, and Roosevelt philandered. Scoundrels all.

I think you are right

 

[Ove]

The only problem there is Harris himself. By 1945 Bomber Command had the ability to be as nearly as precise attacking at night as the USAAF was attacking in daylight. But Harris was an ideologue who steadfastly refused to accept the idea of precision bombing; he was convinced the only way to bomb and produce results was with area bombing.

He really should have been replaced with a more forward-thinking commander by 1945, but Harris' stature by that time was such that no one was willing to fire him.

I know that, he was a great follower of Douet's ideas BUT his refusal was primarely because he meant that presicion bombing would be too costly in lives, bomber crew lives that is. 617 squadron did prove him wrong but there is an element off truth in his words. 617 was experts, it was crews that had 1-2 tours of operations behind them and they trained a LOT. Most bomber squadrons were composed of fresh crews that came-flew their 25 missions and then went on to other duties, -if they survived. You simply had no time to train the crews to use the SABS bombsight.

But there is an interesting line of thought: What if the Brits had abandoned all heavies (except perhaps 617) and concentrated on building Mossies instead? The Mosquito could carry a 4000 pound "Cookie" far into Germany, hit its target VERY precisely and outrun the fighters on the way home. AND there would only 2 men in each crew compared to the 7 in Lancs. Now there's a thought.

 

[Cainkane1]

Actually since the bombing of Dresden had a terror factor the bombing did have a purpose. It showed the Germans that they weren't safe anywhere.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But there is an interesting line of thought: What if the Brits had abandoned all heavies (except perhaps 617) and concentrated on building Mossies instead? The Mosquito could carry a 4000 pound "Cookie" far into Germany, hit its target VERY precisely and outrun the fighters on the way home. AND there would only 2 men in each crew compared to the 7 in Lancs. Now there's a thought.

This used to be (may still be, I haven't been there lately) a regular argument on the military aviation Usenet group. The problem is that there's a certain amount of either/or in the qualities you list here. The Mosquito was certainly capable of extraordinary precision, but that was by virtue of low-level bombing, by day, and usually in small numbers. It was capable of outrunning fighters, but again that relied on small numbers, and the extra weight and drag of a Cookie may have made it vulnerable to fighters on the way to the target. Also, start sending 1,000 bomber raids over with Mossies and the night fighters don't have any Stirlings to concentrate on; how much do the Mossie losses go up? It's an attractive argument, but looked at in more detail it's far from certain this would have been an improvement. In terms of tonnage of bombs, Lancasters could carry over three times as much on twice the number of engines and half the number of pilots; most of the extra crewmen were gunners, easier to train.

B-17s are the other favourite topic, as they rarely carried more than 4,000lb on long range missions. In this case the tonnage dropped would be twice as much per engine, but it's been pointed out that unescorted Mosquitoes couldn't have caused the same attrition in the Luftwaffe fighter arm as the combination of B-17 gunners and Mustang escorts, which seems to have been a major, if perhaps unanticipated, fringe benefit of the USAAF daylight offensive.

Dave

 

[Corsair 115]

I know that, he was a great follower of Douet's ideas BUT his refusal was primarely because he meant that presicion bombing would be too costly in lives, bomber crew lives that is.

To clarify, I meant precision bombing as practiced by the USAAF, that is, aiming for specific economic targets such as factories and oil refineries and trying to knock them out, rather than just bombing a city area in general. Bomber Command could have been used in this sort of precision bombing late in the war, but rarely was. This in spite of achieving an accuracy rate in the attack on the French railway network in the days before and after D-Day that often matched or even surpassed the 8th Air Force's. By 1945 Bomber Command's potential for accuracy was even better when the various electronic navigational networks were able to establish stations on the continent itself.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

To clarify, I meant precision bombing as practiced by the USAAF, that is, aiming for specific economic targets such as factories and oil refineries and trying to knock them out, rather than just bombing a city area in general. Bomber Command could have been used in this sort of precision bombing late in the war, but rarely was. This in spite of achieving an accuracy rate in the attack on the French railway network in the days before and after D-Day that often matched or even surpassed the 8th Air Force's. By 1945 Bomber Command's potential for accuracy was even better when the various electronic navigational networks were able to establish stations on the continent itself.

Hi. First Post.

I think there is a general consensus that the RAF were capable of hitting targets at night as least accurately as the USAAF by day. This due, as you say, to factors like H2S and oboe that were beyond a navigators wildest dreams in 1940.

The reason that the RAF couldn’t switch to precision bombing is that it would have meant admitting that area bombing wasn’t as efficacious as had been claimed. And area bombing was by that time so ingrained into the RAF's doctrine that such loss of face to the various individual and the collective ego would have been unthinkable.

The cost benefit analysis of the area bombing campaign is impossible to conduct in an objective and scientifically controlled manner. At least without the benefits of a time machine.

I do think though that there is a tendency to overlook the cost to the Nazis of area bombing in terms of the resources diverted to civil defence that could otherwise have been directed at the Eastern Front, or North Africa, or Normandy etc.... We are talking about enormous manpower commitments to fight fires and man anti-aircraft defences, huge numbers of 88mm guns that would of served Germany better shooting up T32s rather than pumping shells into her own skies and shift in production from bombers (offensive machines) to fighters (defensive machines). The scientific and technological capital the Germans expended on defending home skies was also massive.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Hitler's attitude came from having been on the western front in WWI and having seen its effects on those he regarded as mensch. This is actually a topic I find has been left rather undiscussed. Gassing soldiers in WWI had terrible effects, which Hitler witnessed, and therefore he forbade this type of warfare to his Generals.

He did? Six Million dead Jews may have a different opinion.

 

[Ove]

He did? Six Million dead Jews may have a different opinion.

Touché.. -I thought precisely the same...

 

[Ove]

I do think though that there is a tendency to overlook the cost to the Nazis of area bombing in terms of the resources diverted to civil defence that could otherwise have been directed at the Eastern Front, or North Africa, or Normandy etc.... We are talking about enormous manpower commitments to fight fires and man anti-aircraft defences, huge numbers of 88mm guns that would of served Germany better shooting up T32s rather than pumping shells into her own skies and shift in production from bombers (offensive machines) to fighters (defensive machines). The scientific and technological capital the Germans expended on defending home skies was also massive.

Thanks for your time.

Exactly, i think that that factor alone had a HUGE impact. Yes area bombing is a grizzly business but id did tie up an awfully lot of people that could have been used elsewhere. On the other hand the bombing of factories didn't exactly hinder the production, actually the war-production in Germany increased steadily until late 1944 and it was material shortage that in the end halted production, NOT bombing. One bombing offensive that did help though was the systematic destruction of Hitlers Fuel reserves. Most of Luftwaffe was more or less grounded from late 1944 due to fuel shortage.
Also the systematic destruction og transport helped a lot and that was shared equally between USAF at daytime and RAF at night, particularily my old friends from 617 did a lot to put railway marshalling yards and canals out of action.
BUT 617 is the exception that confirms the rule.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Another thing in the Mein Fuhrer / Churchill war crimes smackdown event. I understand Hitler was vehemently opposed to the employment of any chemical/biological weapons on the battlefield. Whereas old Fatty Lispy Bulldog had specifically recommended, in writing, its use against Kurdish tribes.
Hitler's attitude came from having been on the western front in WWI and having seen its effects on those he regarded as mensch. This is actually a topic I find has been left rather undiscussed. Gassing soldiers in WWI had terrible effects, which Hitler witnessed, and therefore he forbade this type of warfare to his Generals.
Rather decent of the old chap, I think.

Small tip: When referring to Hitler, don't use "mein Führer" unless you're very sure that's what you want to say. ("mein" means "my").

On the other hand... Hitler war criminal?, Churchill war criminal?
You'd have to side with the former, due mainly to his more rabid belief in a Darwinist world view.

Nah, old Adolf's Christianity was a bit too progressive for my tastes. Since we're making a choice based on irrelevant single issues anyway.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I remember reading that in WWII it was the Allies (actually the British) who instigated the bombing raids on cities. Berlin was bombed during a low-point, more as a propaganda exercise than anything militarily useful, and Mein Fuhrer sought retaliation.

Err...Excluding Poland and Rotterdam... and I'd hardly call the hight of the battle of Britain a "low point". At least from the RAF's point of view, when pilots were being hacked out the sky faster than they could be rushed through some rudimentary training.