This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
over
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
-- 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)
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)
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":
-- Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 10 Nov 2004 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Thanks, page ref modified Andrewshobley 81.77.219.214 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)
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 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):
For more details on the treaty obligations see Aerial area bombardment and international law -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 31 January 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))
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)
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)
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)
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)]]
Source for Harris' RFC service; Christopher Shores' 'Above the Trenches' (Grub Street 1990)- page 185 [[ Harryurz 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)]]
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:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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).
"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)
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)
Shouldn't this article really be entitled: "Arthur Travers Harris", perhaps with a redirect from Bomber Harris? Bill 14:47, 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
--
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 ---
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)
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)
Thank you David. 86.41.24.135 ( talk) 09:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
You say He finished the war a major.
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
over
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
-- 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)
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)
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":
-- Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 10 Nov 2004 (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Thanks, page ref modified Andrewshobley 81.77.219.214 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)
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 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):
For more details on the treaty obligations see Aerial area bombardment and international law -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 31 January 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))
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)
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)
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)
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)]]
Source for Harris' RFC service; Christopher Shores' 'Above the Trenches' (Grub Street 1990)- page 185 [[ Harryurz 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)]]
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:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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).
"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)
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)
Shouldn't this article really be entitled: "Arthur Travers Harris", perhaps with a redirect from Bomber Harris? Bill 14:47, 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
--
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 ---
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)
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)
Thank you David. 86.41.24.135 ( talk) 09:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
You say He finished the war a major.
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)
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)