# War Museum Bomber Command Exhibit Change



## rlh (28 Aug 2007)

The front page of the _Ottawa Citizen_ today reads "'A victory for veterans'; Museum to rewrite controversial text to show 'respect.'"

I think there are a whole slew of aspects that could be debated around this issue and decision.  I'll throw a few questions out there for discussion:  Is this the right decision?  Were veterans over reacting?  Was the museum wrong to include reference to a controversy (about which many long books have been written) in a short panel trying to depict Bomber Command history?  What is the role of Canada's war musuem?  Who is its logical audience -- both now and in the future?  Can the "value vs morality of strategic bombing" debate ever be resolved?

Your thoughts?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2007)

rlh

I thought I would change a few words to see if it really mattered or try and figure out what the point could really be from a different perspective.

The front page of the _Ottawa Citizen_ today reads "'A victory for Gays and Lesbians'; Museum to rewrite controversial text to show 'respect.'"

I think there are a whole slew of aspects that could be debated around this issue and decision.  I'll throw a few questions out there for discussion:  Is this the right decision?  Were Gays and Lesbians over reacting?  Was the museum wrong to include reference to a controversy (about which many long books have been written) in a short panel trying to depict Gays and Lesbians throughout history?  What is the role of Canada's Museum of Civilization?  Who is its logical audience -- both now and in the future?  Can the "value vs morality of Gay and Lesbian Lifestyle" debate ever be resolved?

Your thoughts?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2007)

What we actually have here, is a belated reaction by the Canadian War Museum and its parent, the Museum of Civilization, to an outcry from Canadian Veterans.  It is the same thing, (although a lot slower to be acted upon,) as would have happened for any other of Canada's minority groups who vocally protest.


----------



## rlh (28 Aug 2007)

Taking the "vocal minority" perspective should not mean that discussion is dismissed or avoided.  Here are some of my feelings on the issues I raised.

Firstly, history cannot be sanitized; otherwise, it is propagada or fiction.  There are great things to remember; there are awful things that have to be acknowledged as well.  This is the theoretical stand I take on writing history, and I have to chaff at any attempt to erase negative things from the history pages.

Nevertheless, I do NOT think that those who participated in air bombing campaigns should ever have been called "war criminals" in the first place.  Strategic bombing was accepted war practice at the time by both sides.  Hence, I feel that veterans are totally justified in being incensed by any such insinuation.

A musuem's role is to preserve and present our national history for and to the public.  The audience a museum should be aiming for is those coming to _learn _ about Canada's history -- children, their parents, foreign visitors.  And the natural method to do this is visually (isn't that what musuems started off as, places to preserve artifacts?) and short explanations to give facts and context.  Musuems are at a level too general to really teach much to those who are already knowledgeable about history; there is simply not enough room for all the text to do that.  (Read a book!)  As an historian, I enjoy going to the musuem to see the "things" that were actually a part of the history I have already learned about.

Hence, I think the War Musuem was wrong to include reference to any controversy in the first place.  That is part of historiography which has no place in a museum trying to teach the basic facts to the general public.  Nevertheless, the protest by the veterans bothered me somewhat -- the debate exists and cannot simply be blotted out of intellectual debate so as to sanitize history.

Can the debate ever be resolved?  No.  Should that mean it is never discussed?  No again.  Discussion and disagreement are both informative, and they force us to understand our position, as well as articulate it clearly with reasonable arguments.  But there is something else that can be gleaned from considering this specific debate:  in writing our history, we cannot put our values of today onto those who lived in the past.  Instead, we need to understand _why_ strategic bombing was considered OK at the time, and we need to understand why it did or didn't work.  Facing reality is the only way we can learn from history.  There's not much to learn from fiction:  either everything was perfect, or it's just all made up so why does it matter in the first place?

A messy answer -- yes.  But that's reality as well:  not neat and tidy, but rather full of contradictions that must co-exist.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2007)

I agree with you 100%.  I do place a lot of blame on the Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum for treating Canadian Veterans differently than they would any other minority in this country.  The management, including the Historians, at these two institutions have tried to rewrite history in a way, putting today's values and Politically Correct views on a historical event that had totally different values and social norms.  The sad thing is that they can't even get modern history correct.  To these people the Canadian Forces are still Peacekeepers.


----------



## Haletown (28 Aug 2007)

the original text was not just insulting, it was at best inaccurate, at worst an outright lie.  

 Clear case of historical revisionism, brought to you by our moral superiors who failed in their duty to provide a balanced explanation of what happened.

Way overdue, some heads should have rolled as well.


----------



## rlh (28 Aug 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> the original text was not just insulting, it was at best inaccurate, at worst an outright lie.
> 
> Clear case of historical revisionism, brought to you by our moral superiors



All part of a predominant trend amongst the civilian culture that wouldn't want to say _anything_ good about military forces in general!


----------



## dapaterson (28 Aug 2007)

The plaque said nothing about war criminals.  It raised the question whether Bomber Comand's efforts were of miltiary value and whether they were moral.



> The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested.
> 
> Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war.



Indeed, it's only the always voluable Cliff Chadderton who's using the words "War Criminals" - a rather sleazy tactic of smearing the War Museum for something they never said.

However, with this tempest over, I'm certain that someone in the Museum hierarchy will boast about having  achieved "Peace in Our Time", since we all know how well appeasement works...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Aug 2007)

Whatever the sentiment at the time was, we have to objectively recognize what took place.  No one should be able to stand up and honestly say "The attack on Dresden only targeted military installations; civilian collateral losses were unfortunate but a necessary part of war."  It is what it is, a tactic that was deemed acceptable by the leadership of the time.  Would it be acceptable today?  I certainly think not.  I actually saw nothing wrong with the way the display was worded -- it was an honest and true statement: huge civilian losses and relatively little loss in military/industrial production.  The display never said that personnel of Bomber Command, either leadership or the aircrew, acted in a criminal manner.  Although one of my grandfathers worked on Mosquito night fighters on the ground, he would often hear aircrew discussing the evening's exploits (sweep and escort for Lancasters) and there were a few times he recalls hearing aircrew question the deliberate bombing of civilian centers.  There are some very hard questions that could be asked.  Some would say that we had the benefit of winning the war and thus being able to frame the case whereby actions taken to ensure such victory were 100% warranted.

mein 2 ¢
G2G


----------



## Haletown (28 Aug 2007)

I think this line . . . "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war"  is the one that irks vets. It effectively states what they did was useless, a wasted war effort, that they died in vane.  It is one of the stupidest comments ever made.

Albert Speer was asked about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign and he had a lot to say - all of it about how much it limited German War Production. 

Even more important was the effect it had on German deployment of what war production it did have -  a couple of million Air Defense soldiers, 10 000 + heavy FLAK (88, 105, 128mm) and countless light FLAK units. Radar and searchlight batteries, repair personnel and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition that would have been much appreciated by Front Line German Army units.

The Bombing campaign forced the Germans to concentrate on fighter aircraft production at the expense of investing into their own offensive aircraft, forced them into a defensive strategy and without doubt, played a very significant role in Allied victory. The disruption of the German war effort when forced to disperse and/or go underground certainly didn't help the Germans step up war production.


To imply that the bomber offensive was a useless effort is cheap historical revisionism at its worst.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Aug 2007)

infer / imply.

If some vets infer from the wording that their effort was in vain, that is their prerogative -- the wording states that the value and morality of the bombing campaign remains bitterly contested, that IMO is not inaccurate.  I think that some actions during the bombing campaign were wrong, in particular the Dresden fire bombings.  I would feel worse if I told myself it was all okay, had to be done, a necessary evil, etc... and just move on thinking that only the Germans and the Japanese did things that were at some point between the black and white of bad and good.

Haletown, you have given excellent points on how the bombing campaign affected the German war effort, but the German war effort went on....and quantitatively without the full effects that the Allies had hoped for from their bombing campaigns.

I'm not going to go back and judge actions taken in the past against society's morality today -- at the same time, however, I'm not going to change my beliefs to think that we were pure as the driven snow in an attempt to avoid exacerbating the issue to which some vets have taken umbrage.  There are more than a few folks out there with relatives who served in that period that will tell you some stories that definitively put aside the pure-driven snow image.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Strike (28 Aug 2007)

> The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested.



I think that this is the part that gets to me the most.  It's a true statement, but at the time of the war, was it really?  Those who were making the decisions at the time certainly didn't believe it, since they kept ordering these actions.

I think to raise questions (although not worded as such that's exactly what it does) such as these goes beyond what we expect to see in a museum.  Throw the facts and numbers out there, but let the visitors use this information to make their own decisions and possibly look into things further.

I've been to many museums, some of which displayed controversial topics, but none ever talked about what the moral whole's views were.  Case in point, the KKK display that was at St Mungo's museum in Glasgow.  All very factual, but not once did it say, "the KKK's views about non-whites and non-Christians remains a hot topic in today's society."  All the photos and descriptions were neither positive nor negative.  They gave facts and descriptions of photos, and that was it.

When a museum starts adding emotional diatribes to its displays (and the use of "bitterly contested" makes this one just that) they run the risk of affecting someone's views instead of allowing that person to make decisions on their own.

My view on the subject.


----------



## rlh (29 Aug 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> but the German war effort went on....and quantitatively without the full effects that the Allies had hoped for from their bombing campaigns.



This is totally correct, but it is too complicated an issue to try to place on a panel in a museum that is going to be viewed by more non-experts than experts (general public -- kids, parents, tourists from around the world).  This is what books, documentaries, or even public lectures are for -- delving into the fact that the theory didn't quite pan out in reality.  And why -- because it's goals were beyond the ability of aircraft technology of the time and because people's morale was more resiliant than assumed.  Sometimes theories don't work, but that is only discovered by trying and failing.  nevertheless, the bombing did partially accomplish what was aimed for -- tying up the German war effort -- but this could only have been learned by experience  All part of lessons learned.


----------



## Shec (29 Aug 2007)

Value and Morality?  Haletown addresses the value, as in utility,  in his post above.  Morality?  Morality? Get real, the allies were fighting a demonstratedly immoral and draconian evil regime.  Morality ended with Hitler calling the 1938 Munich Agreement something to the effect of "a miserable scrap of paper".  There comes a time when fire can only be fought with fire and one must trade blow for blow.  600,000 dead German civilians, what percentage of the millions of innocent civilians the German Nazi regime massacred and uprooted is that?  To associate my father and uncle, Bomber Command vets both,  with war criminals while their grandparents, uncles, aunts. and cousins were being exterminated in places like Aushwitz and Treblinka is a travesty.   Lest we forget that Bomber Command's disproportionately high casualties were the price paid for admission to the museum.   Commemorate them, remember why they did it,  and honour their efforts.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Aug 2007)

Shec:  I'll say again that the War Museum never uses the term "war criminal" nor does it imply it.  The only person using that term in a drive-by smear campaign is Mr Chadderton.

Museums are not monuments to heroism, frozen in time.  They should inspire reflection and discussion.  As written, the plaque in the War Museum does just that - it opens to the door to discussion and debate about what was done.  Even the radical left-wing anti-military historian, Jack Granatstein (and yes, that was said fully toungue in cheek) supports the text as written.

"Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" to quote an old canard.  If we cannot re-examine our actions and discuss them, if we cannot understand why things were done and whether we would do the same today, then we have learned nothing.  A society shrouded in silence, with no ability to discuss issues in the past, but only mindless adulation without critical examination, is not what Canadians fought and died for.


----------



## Strike (29 Aug 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Shec:  I'll say again that the War Museum never uses the term "war criminal" nor does it imply it.  The only person using that term in a drive-by smear campaign is Mr Chadderton.



No arguments there.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Museums are not monuments to heroism, frozen in time.  They should inspire reflection and discussion.  As written, the plaque in the War Museum does just that - it opens to the door to discussion and debate about what was done.  Even the radical left-wing anti-military historian, Jack Granatstein (and yes, that was said fully toungue in cheek) supports the text as written.
> 
> "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" to quote an old canard.  If we cannot re-examine our actions and discuss them, if we cannot understand why things were done and whether we would do the same today, then we have learned nothing.  A society shrouded in silence, with no ability to discuss issues in the past, but only mindless adulation without critical examination, is not what Canadians fought and died for.



Then both sides should have been presented equally to allow the reader the chance to make their own decision.  As it was written, the info given was only on the allied campaign and not the methods used, and damages done, by the German campaign.


----------



## Flip (29 Aug 2007)

> As it was written, the info given was only on the allied campaign and not the methods used, and damages done, by the German campaign.



I agree!

To which I will add - Also, the context and pressures of "total war"(Gwynn Dyer's term)
are probably absent.  Easy to judge the actions of another time while enjoying
the fruits of those actions, largely without acknowledgment.

We grow up fat and happy in post war world - And we are shocked at what
gave us that post war era.


----------



## Haletown (29 Aug 2007)

The text as currently written is inaccurate. 
The text as currently written is "torqued" to convey sentiments not applicable at the time the events took place
The text as currently written is intended to lead readers to assume things that did not happen for reasons that are clearly revisionist, ex post facto interpretations of history.

Bomber Command played a vital role in defeating a sick, murdering, demented tyranny. In the long, bleak years of defeat after defeat, Britain had to do whatever it could do to hit back, to convince Russia to stay  in the war and to do everything to support civilian moral on the home front.  After what the Nazis did to Britain arguments about morality were restricted to the lofty  hypothetical levels by a few CoE and were the 20th century equivalent of arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of pin.  People cheered in the streets of London when the Germany, who sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind, had city after city razed to rubble.  Any pain inflicted on Germany was good, just and moral because everything, in the final sums, that hurt Germany's war effort, moved the Allies one step closer to victory.

Nobody is saying Bomber Command defeated Germany all by itself, but there is no argument that it played a key role and helped ensure victory in a timely manner.  There were negligible arguments during the war over mass bombing - it is a post war historical discussion.  

Trying to impose current visions and morals on past events is like farting into a windstorm . . ya feel better but it matters not a whit.  While we live in a world that currently is a button press away from a nuclear attack that would kill 600 million in a quick blink, carping on about what our ancestors and my father did to ensure our victory and Germany's defeat is utterly incomprehensible.  Every bomb that fell on Germany was cheered loudly by the hundreds of millions who suffered under the mass murdering Nazi regime. The sufferers would be gob smacked that there is any debate here at all and wondering why we didn't bomb the rubble in to fine dust.


----------



## Shec (29 Aug 2007)

Whether Cliff Chadderton initially raised the issue "war criminals" is no longer relevant.  CBC radio news has been using, and thereby propagating, the use of that label all morning.  The perception has been created and as perceptions tend to become reality it is imperative to deal with it head on, not dance around it.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Aug 2007)

OK then, here's a text that could be used:



> (The aim of Bomber Command) was the destruction of German cities; the killing of German workers; and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany. It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.



The authour?  Air Marshall Arthur Harris, who directed the policy.


----------



## Haletown (30 Aug 2007)

or they could use other quotes from ACM Harris

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

or, one of my favorites ( substitute one Canadian Infantryman)

"I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.


----------



## Simon (30 Aug 2007)

After listening to the CWM consultant on CBC this morning Im sensing a bit of a bruised ego amongst our academics, first she states that we consult groups for thier input and then decide, could this not be considered as a form of appeal. I do agree that the war museum is not necessarily a place to memorialize, however we would expect them to demonstrate a balanced approach, and dissent is a check in this balance. 

I believe it partially captures the slow pendulum swinging away from the trudeauian National non identity multicultural quilt, back to a clearer form of Canadianism and a Canadian identity, as does the support the troops banners on public vehicles, and I say good show.

A natural result of this new found, or recaptured identity is a more connected approach to our CF family, and hopefully a reduction in cynicsm of its purpose.
Or did I just put on the wrong coloured glasses?


----------



## Shec (30 Aug 2007)

> (The aim of Bomber Command) was the destruction of German cities; the killing of German workers; and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany. It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.





> "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."



For what its worth I trust that  either of these direct quotes from 'Bomber' Harris are sufficient.  While they might indeed freeze a moment in time they answer the "why" the campaign was conducted without inviting a judgement upon whether or not it was moral.
That sort of editorializing is the prerogative of academics and clergy but not the purview of a national public institution whose role is factual and unbiased transparency so that the body politic can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## rlh (30 Aug 2007)

Shec said:
			
		

> That sort of editorializing is the prerogative of academics and clergy but not the purview of a national public institution whose role is factual and unbiased transparency so that the body politic can draw their own conclusions.



That's my feeling as well, but perhaps I am an oddity of an academic to be taking the stand that musuem displays should not be used as the soap box for academic debates.  Why did the museum write the panel the way it was in the first place?  Because the people working there are academics (no criticism intended) who are doing what they are trained to do:  not just give bare facts but rather convey the complexity of history .

As I mentioned before, a public lecture series held at, and sponsored by, the musuem would be an excellent means of getting into the complexity of the story.  And there would also be the time to give all the information and context needed to understand all the different angles:  bombing theory, failed strategies, primitive technology, unexpected outcomes, view from the planes, view from headquarters, view from the civilians being bombed, differing views of historians over the years.  And then the audience would also have a chance to ask questions, challenge arguments, and take part in the debate.  All of this just cannot be covered in one display discription.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2007)

rlh said:
			
		

> ....As I mentioned before, a public lecture series held at, and sponsored by, the musuem would be an excellent means of getting into the complexity of the story.  And there would also be the time to give all the information and context needed to understand all the different angles:  bombing theory, failed strategies, primitive technology, unexpected outcomes, view from the planes, view from headquarters, view from the civilians being bombed, differing views of historians over the years.  And then the audience would also have a chance to ask questions, challenge arguments, and take part in the debate.  All of this just cannot be covered in one display discription.



+1


----------



## dapaterson (30 Aug 2007)

What is Truth?

The "bare facts" can be arranged to suit any agenda; the plaque, as written, stimulates thought, discussion and debate (witness this thread!).  Hollow hero worship serves no purpose.

But if we want facts, let's see:


It is estimated that between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilians died as a result of the targetting of German cities
One of Bomber Command's stated objectives was "the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany"

Both are facts; but do not adequately portray what happened.  They lack context; oddly enough, the plaque as currently written provides context, both historical and contemporary.

The notion of "Truth" as an absolute is a fine philosophical concept; reality has pesky shades of grey that interfere with such absolutist ideas.  But if we can only ever say "Us Good.  Them Bad" we will never understand why events happened, or how to work to prevent their recurrence.  If I want to see a museum that is filled with nothing more than hollow praise of the Great Patriotic War, I'll head for Russia.


----------



## Strike (30 Aug 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Both are facts; but do not adequately portray what happened.  They lack context; oddly enough, the plaque as currently written provides context, both historical and contemporary.



Which is the first problem...we cannot place the moral views of today onto events in the past.  Ex, we all know that the witch trial of previous centuries was wrong (not comparing the two events, just providing context here), but that's how things were at the time.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The notion of "Truth" as an absolute is a fine philosophical concept; reality has pesky shades of grey that interfere with such absolutist ideas.  But if we can only ever say "Us Good.  Them Bad" we will never understand why events happened, or how to work to prevent their recurrence.  If I want to see a museum that is filled with nothing more than hollow praise of the Great Patriotic War, I'll head for Russia.



Then perhaps the new panel should include the stats of the German bombing campaign.  Again, let people make up their own minds.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2007)

The start point should be the theories of air power by Douhet et al that influenced all the major powers in the structure of their air forces in the period between the war. It was considered acceptable to bomb the enemy's cities as a tactic, just as it was an accepted tactic to target factories, railways and power plants.

The challenge for the British especially is that they had made a real mess of structuring their bomber force. The bombs were weak and prone to not detonating; the aircraft lacked payload, range and defensive armament; when forced into night bombing, it was found that the aircrew could not navigate to reach the target; in all for much of the war Bomber Command was ineffective. We make much of the failure of the British army to develop a proper tank and the tactics to fight a mechanized war; surely the RAF is equally culpable in its failure to develop its component of what was the major Western Allied offensive for the first four years of the war. That these aircrew continued to operate at all says much about the motivation and courage of these youngsters, many of whom were still in their teens.

This must have been understood. One could ask why wasn't it fixed? A major effort was made to adapt the force, and it was largely successful, but Bomber Command was an imprecise and imperfect instrument. So were all the services on both sides, but that is the nature of war.

In my opinion, it was the result of looking for a panacea for the bloodbath of the Great War. It was earnestly hoped, and probably believed that air power could substitute for ground combat power. The senior air officers were true believers and were concerned that the other services were looking for an excuse to take them over. They wanted to win the war with air power to prove the others wrong and to cement their position. The politicians wanted to minimize the loss of life on their side while winning the war. It would have been inconceivable for both groups to try to change course midways during the war; thus the errors made in the pre-war period largely dictated the shape of the aerial campaigns.


----------



## rlh (30 Aug 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The start point should be the theories of air power by Douhet et al that influenced all the major powers in the structure of their air forces in the period between the war. It was considered acceptable to bomb the enemy's cities as a tactic, just as it was an accepted tactic to target factories, railways and power plants.



Precision bombing is what the allies wanted to do and started to do.  Because the desired precision was not being attained with the current technology, tactics were changed from precision to carpet bombing and night bombing for better protection.

If you are going to talk about failed accomplishments, you have to talk about original expectations and modified tactics.  I don't think the musuem plaque captures this element of the story.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2007)

rlh

Agreed re the failure of precision bombing. Even carpet bombing was and is not that effective. A couple of examples if I may. In Normandy when the heavy bombers were used in support of the ground forces, many of the missions were less than effective despite air superiority, daylight conditions and clear weather. It was the nature of the weapon systems, both day and night. At the time the Allied Air Forces commanders were emphatic that carpet bombing was not possible.

During the first Gulf War I was part of an ad hoc group created to follow and analyse the results both during the air preparation and the ground campaign. Early on a senior official in DND raised the possibility of the USAF being able to destroy the Iraqi forces deployed in Kuwait and Southern Iraq by carpet bombing. It was possible to demonstrate to him that the Americans did not have enough resources to achieve this aim. Remember the question specifically had to do with destruction (which we took to be rendering the enemy militarily ineffective) by carpet bombing.


----------



## Shec (30 Aug 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What is Truth?
> 
> The "bare facts" can be arranged to suit any agenda...
> 
> ...



Ah, but is not the quest for truth based upon bare facts?  Seems to me that the evidence-based approach is the fundamental precept of our legal system.  And is not the responsibility of each individual  to determine their own truth on the basis of those facts?  As far context goes, if memory serves me correct the entire section of the CWM that is devoted to WW2 provides that, the section on the bomber campaign is hardly an isolated display.   Therefore, unless those who presented the interpretation are jurists their "truth" borders on propaganda and perhaps they should the ones to go to Russia, but not on our tax dollars.


----------



## rlh (30 Aug 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Even carpet bombing was and is not that effective.



I totally agree!  I didn't mean to imply that carpet bombing was any more successful that precision bombing in carrying out the intended consequences.  What was going through my mind was that theorists and policy makers were thinking precision targeting first, and when that didn't work, they moved on to what they could do -- drop bombs everywhere.  It was this change of tactics that lead to actually executing full-fledged attacks on civilian morale.

The success or failure or extent of success of this new tactic is what this entire debate is about.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2007)

The success or failure or extent of success of this new tactic is what this entire debate is about.

And ultimately that becomes subjective and emotional. I have not reached a conclusion one way or the other about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign; there are just too many subjective variables and I have other things to occupy my attention.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Aug 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> During the first Gulf War I was part of an ad hoc group created to follow and analyse the results both during the air preparation and the ground campaign. Early on a senior official in DND raised the possibility of the USAF being able to destroy the Iraqi forces deployed in Kuwait and Southern Iraq by carpet bombing. It was possible to demonstrate to him that the Americans did not have enough resources to achieve this aim. Remember the question specifically had to do with destruction (which we took to be rendering the enemy militarily ineffective) by carpet bombing.



Interesting ... I just finished a book about Gen Horner (Every Man a Tiger) in which he recalled that the aim of the air campaign was to render the enemy militarily ineffective (i.e., <50% strength) through bombing ... seems like he achieved that objective ... not challenging you here, but I am curious to hear your thoughts (did precision bombing achieve in this case what carpet bombing could not, though one could argue the opposite in Vietnam) ...


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2007)

Interesting ... I just finished a book about Gen Horner (Every Man a Tiger) in which he recalled that the aim of the air campaign was to render the enemy militarily ineffective (i.e., <50% strength) through bombing ... seems like he achieved that objective ... not challenging you here, but I am curious to hear your thoughts (did precision bombing achieve in this case what carpet bombing could not, though one could argue the opposite in Vietnam) ...
It's hard to say. The BDA's (Battle Damage Assessments) were all over the map. As I recall, and it was nearly two decades ago and we were looking at a lot of stuff, we doubted the official figures. Having said that, the air campaign did a lot of good stuff; would it have been as successful against a better enemy? We saw a lot of videos of guided bombs hitting buildings. The question is, was that the best use of air power?

Sorry if I am weasel-wording, but I still don't know.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2007)

From what I saw at the museum prior to the change, the exhibit was not about the argument between what was desired and what was achieved during WW II (which would be the proper role of a museum supposedly devoted to military history and scholarship), but rather implying that the campaign was immoral based on the PC values of Canadian academics working in Ottawa in the 1990's.

Some of the posts in this thread are well thought out, well researched and succinct enough to have been plaques at the exhibit, answering questions in ways that the non specialist could understand (Why was airpower so emphasised in the pre war period? Why was precision bombing abandoned? Was carpet bombing effective? What metrics were being used to determine the effect of the bombing? etc.). The fact that a bunch of posters on the internet can put together a better virtual exhibition in their spare time than "professionals" using unlimited tax dollars probably says far more about the museums than anything else. Perhaps someone can be so kind as to forward this thread to the CWM and suggest their exhibit is waiting for them right here.......


----------



## rlh (31 Aug 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The fact that a bunch of posters on the internet can put together a better virtual exhibition in their spare time than "professionals" using unlimited tax dollars probably says far more about the museums than anything else.



Ouch! 

But I can't argument with the observation, though.


----------



## klambie (31 Aug 2007)

rlh said:
			
		

> Ouch!
> 
> But I can't argument with the observation, though.



Rubbish.  Most of the posters here seem unaware that this is a single panel in a larger Bomber Command display that attempts to address many of the arguments raised here.  Read the minutes of the Senate hearings (and the final report that I have not yet read) if you are interested in both sides of this tiff.

Final report
http://tinyurl.com/35ufn2
http://tinyurl.com/2vq7ft

Senate hearings
April 18
http://tinyurl.com/2oyu9c
May 2
http://tinyurl.com/2mrqan
May 9
http://tinyurl.com/33je34
May 16
http://tinyurl.com/2n3f5u


----------



## time expired (31 Aug 2007)

And what, I would like to ask these Revisionist intellectuals was the alternative
to the allied bombing campaign?.Stalemate or possible defeat, surely from even
their point of view, morally unacceptable.However as usual they have no viable
alternatives to present.The bombing campaign,flawed as it was,due mainly to 
the technology or lack of same of those times, was the only weapon available
to the Allies to strike back at Nazi Germany.As a child I can remember well
standing in the street with my mother cheering as the RAF bombers flew at
low level over my hometown (Coventry)to assemble for the first 1000 bomber
raid on Köln.As targets of the Luftwaffe for 2 years, the feeling was of pure joy
that we were at last striking back,the morality of it was something that is the
luxury of the non involved.
Another point that I feel is overlooked is the question ,who were these innocent
civilians?,were they the millions that voted for the NSDAP?,the rapturous crowds
that greeted every victory won by Hitler in every town or city that he visited?,or 
were they the people that screwed together the planes,tanks or guns that Hitler
won these victories with?.Was not the locomotive engineer who drove the train
to Auschwitz in some way responsible for what happened there?.Or are civilians
completely devoid of responsibilities, is it only those who wear uniforms that
bear responsibility.That would seem to be the view of these left wing so called
intellectuals and that makes sense given their distaste for all things military.
                            Rant over.
                                   Regards


----------



## Strike (31 Aug 2007)

TE

+1 on the first part of your post.

-1 on the second.  We have to remember that had any of these "innocent" civilians rebelled against the German war machine they would have most certainly lost their lives, along with their family.  It's all fine and dandy to say that I would fight back had I been living in that time and place, but if the safety of my family, let alone my own, was at stake, I'm not so sure.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Aug 2007)

I can admit that I can understand the logic being applied by the diverse groups surrounding the Bomber Command controversy, but there are some aspects that make me wonder.

I have seen various explanations within which the courage of the Wehrmacht was readily separated from the ideology of the Nazi party when discussing respected battlefield opponents (admittedly no SS unit was ever offered such editorial grace).  Or the courage of the U-Boat crews even while participating in unrestricted submarine warfare that was considered a despicable way to wage war.

In contrast, there seems to be an incapability to do the same when discussing Allied operations.  Why can’t we separately describe the courage and sacrifice of the bomber crews, while simultaneous critically examining the political and strategic decisions that placed them in harms way?

Is that any different than some of the discussion about political decision-making about the CF today – we certainly don’t see our collective opinions as being synchronous with our political direction at all times.  But we do obey it and do not think less of ourselves for having done so.


----------



## time expired (31 Aug 2007)

Micheal O`L.
           The strategy in WW2 Europe was dictated by the actions of one man
Adolf Hitler, a man voted into power by a large majority of the German 
population in 1933,his approval rating remained high as long as he was
winning, despite his methods.The British and their allies had but one strategy,
that was to defeat Germany by whatever means that were available.I suspect
that in 1941 if asked the British population and even more so the populations
of the occupied countries would not have cared if the entire German Herrnvolk,
man , woman and child were wiped out.It is in this atmosphere that the
tactics of the Bomber campaign were formulated and for any intellectual to pass
judgement from the safety and comfort of the ivory towers of the early 21 Cent.
is both arrogant and redundant.
                                      Regards


----------



## klambie (31 Aug 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> I suspect
> that in 1941 if asked the British population and even more so the populations
> of the occupied countries would not have cared if the entire German Herrnvolk,
> man , woman and child were wiped out.It is in this atmosphere that the
> ...



You might be surprised.  In partial response (and useful since we are talking about our War Museum after all), from Dean Oliver's 2 May Senate testimony:

"Even during the war, as most serious accounts note, there was considerable unease about the strategic bombing effort. In Canada, a public opinion poll in January 1943 asked people if they supported ``bombing Germany's civilian population.'' Not surprisingly, 57 per cent of respondents approved, but 38 per cent disapproved. In other words, at the height of the war, nearly two in five Canadians opposed bombing enemy civilians."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Aug 2007)

....yea, from the unbombed safety of their homes.

How little things have changed.....................................


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Aug 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> Micheal O`L.
> The strategy in WW2 Europe was dictated by the actions of one man
> Adolf Hitler, a man voted into power by a large majority of the German
> population in 1933,his approval rating remained high as long as he was
> ...



Thank you, you've encapsulated my point by missing it entirely.


----------



## klambie (31 Aug 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ....yea, from the unbombed safety of their homes.
> 
> How little things have changed.....................................



Right.  With a million other peoples kids over there doing who knows what with no impact on their comfy lives.


----------



## time expired (1 Sep 2007)

Michael O`L.
                I understood your point very well,that we should recognise
the bravery of our aircrews and separate them from the evil b§$%stards
that formulated these bombing policies.This sounds fair on the face of it,
however by calling the bombing campaign a "war crime"one is faced with the 
question,where did the war criminals start?,was the Master bomber a war
criminal or the squadron leader,or the wing commander?,or was it just
Air Marshall Harris and Winston Churchill?.This is what the revisionists
are saying and the surviving aircrew veterans refuse to accept this point,
and I believe rightly so.As I tried to point out in my earlier posts these
policies were formulated in a country that was facing defeat in 41-42 
and was desperately seeking a way of striking back and cannot be 
judged in retrospect, and certainly these revisionist judgements have no
place in a war museum. 
Klambie,based on what the Canadian public know about the present war
being fought in Afghanistan,in this age of instant news coverage,I think
that Canadian public opinion in Jan.43 can be safely discounted as
uninformed and largely irrelevant.
                                      Regards


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Sep 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> .... however by calling the bombing campaign a "war crime"one is faced with the
> question,where did the war criminals start?



What is your source for this?  Please show me the official Canadian source that openly labeled the bomber crews _war criminals _, or the bombing campaign as a _war crime_, *using that specific term*, not a third party's extrapolation.


----------



## time expired (2 Sep 2007)

Micheal O`L.
                 You are correct, no official said war crimes were committed
 they said instead that the bombing was controversial,what the hell
does that mean?,they didn't use big enough bombs?,no I think we
who understand how the left operate know exactly what is being inferred
and if you don't then I am very sorry.
                                         Regards


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Sep 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> Micheal O`L.
> You are correct, no official said war crimes were committed
> they said instead that the bombing was controversial,what the hell
> does that mean?,they didn't use big enough bombs?,no I think we
> ...



No need to apologize.  You appear to be experiencing an emotional reaction to an interpretation that you have chosen to believe is explicitly, and without conditions, against what you accept as absolute truths.  I have asked for factual supporting evidence, which you admit does not seem to exist.

That there is a controversy is well demonstrated by the existence of this discussion here, on similar forums and in the media.  The controversy is one of interpretation and is highlighted by the unwillingness of many parties to surrender their own views to that of the opposing proponents, with neither side seeking compromise.  Questioning an interpretation of the expressed descriptions is NOT the same as branding anyone war criminals.  

Now, please do not be so arrogant to presume that my asking for evidence of your so strongly stated opinions reflects an inability of mine to "know exactly what is being inferred".  Why should I blindly follow one opinion or the other.  Why must I be solely on one side of the issue or the other?  Is asking for facts now to be considered denigrating the valour of the bomber crews too?  And you say "the left" is writing revisionist history.


----------



## rlh (4 Sep 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Please show me the official Canadian source that openly labeled the bomber crews _war criminals _, or the bombing campaign as a _war crime_, *using that specific term*, not a third party's extrapolation.



The front page headline of the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday 28 August 2007 was "After a Long Fight, the Canadian War Musuem Backs Down and Says it Will Change Exhibit Veterans Say Portrays Them as War Criminals:  A Victory for Veterans."

Even though this is not an official source, every scriber of the paper read about Bomber Command being equated with war criminals first thing last Tuesday morning.  This label has now entered their internalization of the story.  How much more "official" does one need to get?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2007)

Let's re-iterate:  The only high profile who used the war criminals label is Cliff Chadderton.  He does come across as a rather tragic figure in all this, though, as it seems he's incapable (or possibly unwilling) to discuss anything in depth - his summation seems to be something along the lines that it's unfair to the memory of soldiers to debate and analyze their actions in retrospect.

I must respectfully disagree.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Sep 2007)

rlh said:
			
		

> The front page headline of the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday 28 August 2007 was "After a Long Fight, the Canadian War Musuem Backs Down and Says it Will Change Exhibit Veterans Say Portrays Them as War Criminals:  A Victory for Veterans."
> 
> Even though this is not an official source, every scriber of the paper read about Bomber Command being equated with war criminals first thing last Tuesday morning.  This label has now entered their internalization of the story.  How much more "official" does one need to get?





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Let's re-iterate:  The only high profile who used the war criminals label is Cliff Chadderton.  He does come across as a rather tragic figure in all this, though, as it seems he's incapable (or possibly unwilling) to discuss anything in depth - his summation seems to be something along the lines that it's unfair to the memory of soldiers to debate and analyze their actions in retrospect.
> 
> I must respectfully disagree.



Chadderton (et al?) + the media = _"their internalization"_- I wouldn't call that official in any respect.


----------



## rlh (5 Sep 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Chadderton (et al?) + the media = _"their internalization"_- I wouldn't call that official in any respect.



I wasn't trying to say that these "sources" are official.  My point is that official or unofficial -- to the general public reading a headline, it doesn't really matter.  Rightly or wrongly, the term "war criminal" has been injected into the popular discussion.  Most people highly respect Chadderton because he is so visible and because he is a veteran (hey, and he does the War Amp commercials too).  And most people do not understand now the media does poor, biased, and unbalanced research.  Their training is not to do thorough and proper research; their training to get tell a great story, sell papers, and meet deadlines.

And most people don't understand the importance or meaning of an "official" source.  Does an "official" source really have any meaning to most people?  Officially, the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wars are to be referred to as the First World War and the Second World War in Canada.  Nevertheless, most Canadians still use the American terminology World War I and World War II (do Canadians even know that there is an officially government sanctioned way to refer to these conflicts?)


----------



## time expired (5 Sep 2007)

Micheal O`L
              RE your comment on my emotional response to this report,let 
me explain the basis for my emotionalism.I was born in the City of 
Coventry a city you may or may not have heard of.In Nov. 1940 Adolf
Hitler announced,to the cheers of thousands,that he had coined a new
word"to coventrate",that was to destroy a city with bombs and fire.As was
often the case with Herr Hitler he exaggerated a little however his Luftwaffe
had managed to destroy the medieval center of our city including our
the 12Th century cathedral.I lost relatives and neighbours in these raids and
I feel that justifies my display of emotion.Later in the war I lived in the
east of England in an area surrounded by RAF and USAAF bomber bases
I watched them take off and tried to guess where they were headed and 
I watched them return,some on fire,some with one or two engines stopped,
although no one told me I came to realise that there were dead on board
and others that did not return.At night I lay in bed and listened to the
RAF bombers leaving and once again wondering where they were going,
also if they were suffering the same way the the Americans appeared
to be.These men were my hero's,but it was only after the war that I came to
realise how heroic their sacrifice was,their chances of surviving a full tour
of operations was around 50% and many volunteered for second tours,by the
way the odds for a German getting hit by an allied bomb were somewhat
better .5%,that is correct,point five%.So as you can imagine when some
one infers that these men were doing something dishonourable or even
criminal,my blood begins to boil.
             Comparisons with the Wehrmacht are fatuous in the extreme,one
may admire their soldierly qualities or their tenacity,I do so myself, but
one must remember they were fighting in lands they had brutally
conquered and were trying to hold onto in the name of an evil and
criminal regime.
             The Germans are very tired of hearing about the Holocaust and
the various war crimes that they reputed to have committed and are beginning
to see themselves as victims of the world war. In this they are helped by
authors such as Jörg Friedrich who wrote a well researched book about
the allied bombing campaign titled "Der Brand"in which he claims the bombing
campaign was a war crime.Whenever the subject is raised in the German 
media,usually anniversary of the Dresden raid, he is trotted out for his 
say, and invariable uses quotes from like thinking revisionists from 
the former allied countries as verification of the truth of his claims.While
I am not in favour of continually bashing the German over the head about
WW2 ,I do feel that calling into question our tactics for beating them is
revisionist claptrap at its very worst and should not be allowed to 
influence our historical view of the Second World War. 
                                 Regards


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Sep 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> ....I do feel that calling into question our tactics for beating them is
> revisionist claptrap at its very worst and should not be allowed to
> influence our historical view of the Second World War.
> Regards



Asking for supporting facts is not the same as "calling into question" the tactics used.  Tactics and strategic direction are also two very different aspects of a conflict.  Shouting down those who seek clearer understanding, rather than simply bowing to "our historical view", may not be revisionist by definition, but it is certainly a form of censorship.  

By the way, I have heard of Coventry.  My condolences for your family's losses in those raids.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Sep 2007)

I'm used to reading and hearing people dance around the point they're trying to make, or to lead others in a certain direction without stating the point indelicately.  (And I'm often guilty of the same.)  Chadderton was simply straightforward and indelicate, as have been many who have used the term "criminal" in the past or approached as asymptotically close as possible without actually using it.  If a public institution wishes to state that something controversial and sensitive is "contested", it should do so without making a value statement as to whether the matter is "bitterly" or "lightly" or any "otherly" so.  The people who draft those statements are intelligent enough to know whether something subjective is likely to get up someone's nose, and intelligent enough to cut some slack for those who don't care to be defamed - even by association - for being ensnarled in a hell not of their making.  I'm not interested in feigning literal-minded ignorance to join a chorus of plausible deniability on behalf of those who know better.

As a matter of morality, I consider deliberate attacks against non-combatants to be evil.  It was evil before, it will be evil in the future; it is only that it has been tolerated to greater or lesser degrees at points in time.  Ultimately, all of the blood and treasure spilled in war is evil.  But you need to consider the purpose of the evil and the alternatives.  Here is what I find to be an interesting question: if I were conscripted against my will (as many were) to fight in a "teeth" arm (where the statistical risk of death or severe injury approaches or exceeds unity), how many lives of the arrogant, ignorant, uncaring, or cowardly people who failed to remove their own government of madmen before or while it pursued the enslavement and murder of much of Europe would I be justified in extinguishing so that I could survive and regain my individual freedom to live my life in peace away from an insane conflict not of my making or consent?


----------



## phaedrus2 (6 Sep 2007)

Just some food for thought regarding the effectiveness of the air campaign.
Interesting piece from a chapter from Michael C.C. Adams' The Best War Ever.

"The daylight sacrifuces did not pay off in bombing accuracy.  Under perfect conditions only 50 percent of American bombs fell within a quarter of a mile of the target.  Fighter attack, flak, smoke, and cloud cover lowered efficiency.  American flyers estimated that as many as 90 percent of bombs could miss their targets (Perrett, 405; Eckert, 260).  Along with British area bombings, this caused hughe 'collateral damage' (to civilians), not only in Germany but in France and other occupied countries, creating resentment of the Allies.  For example, attacks on the submarine pens at Saint-Nazaire and Lorient destroyed the surrounding French towns but left the pens undamages.  'No dog or cat is left in these towns,' wrote German Admiral Karl Donitz.  'Nothing but the submarine shelters remain' (Franklin, 105).

How do we judge the strategic air offensive against Fortress Europe?  There isn;t a simple answer.  On the one hand, hopes that air power would provide a cost-effective, clinical, and humane method of destroying the enemy's power base proved illusory.  Niether Axis nor Allied air attacks slowed overall production or destroyed civilian morale:  both went up under duress.  The official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) estimated that it cost a million dollars in planes, bases, crews, and bombs to do a million dollars damage (Perrett, 437).  Since the Allies could afford the cost more than the Axis, the Allies won.

Air attacks extended the cruelty of war.  At least 635,000 German civilian men, women, and children died, along with thousands in the occupied countries (irving, 41).  Even if the Norden bombsight had proved reliable, the ditinction between military and civilian targets was largely lost in total war.  When bombers attacked a factory, a railroad marshalling yard, a dock, and oil refinery, or an electrical power system, they hit civilian workers and their families in the surrounding working class housing.  The longer a war continues, the greater the de-sensitization to enemy suffering, and the less concern about 'collateral damage'.  By June 1944 the Luftwaffe was defeated, and Allied planes roamed at will, seeking 'targets of opportunity', which inevitably included many nonmilitary structures.

This pattern reached its extreme with the destruction of Dresden, an undefended city that had neither industrial nor military significance.  On February 13 and 14, 1945, the city was bombed three times by the RAF and U.S. Either Air Force, creating a fire storm that killed up to 135,000 people and destroyed irreplaceable examples of medieval architecture.  Military historian James M. Morris concluded that, by the time Germany surrendered, virtually nothing of any significance was left to bomb.

On the other hand, the air offensive did make significant contributions to the Allied victory in western Europe.  Although German industrial production climbed, the rate would have been higher without the bombings.  By using the bombers as decoys in daylight raids and accepting a high cost in crews, Americans drew the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition that virtually destroyed it by D-Day, vastly helping the success of the invasion and saving the lives of Allied ground forces."


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm used to reading and hearing people dance around the point they're trying to make, or to lead others in a certain direction without stating the point indelicately.  (And I'm often guilty of the same.)  Chadderton was simply straightforward and indelicate, as have been many who have used the term "criminal" in the past or approached as asymptotically close as possible without actually using it.  If a public institution wishes to state that something controversial and sensitive is "contested", it should do so without making a value statement as to whether the matter is "bitterly" or "lightly" or any "otherly" so.  The people who draft those statements are intelligent enough to know whether something subjective is likely to get up someone's nose, and intelligent enough to cut some slack for those who don't care to be defamed - even by association - for being ensnarled in a hell not of their making.  I'm not interested in feigning literal-minded ignorance to join a chorus of plausible deniability on behalf of those who know better.
> 
> As a matter of morality, I consider deliberate attacks against non-combatants to be evil.  It was evil before, it will be evil in the future; it is only that it has been tolerated to greater or lesser degrees at points in time.  Ultimately, all of the blood and treasure spilled in war is evil.  But you need to consider the purpose of the evil and the alternatives.  Here is what I find to be an interesting question: if I were conscripted against my will (as many were) to fight in a "teeth" arm (where the statistical risk of death or severe injury approaches or exceeds unity), how many lives of the arrogant, ignorant, uncaring, or cowardly people who failed to remove their own government of madmen before or while it pursued the enslavement and murder of much of Europe would I be justified in extinguishing so that I could survive and regain my individual freedom to live my life in peace away from an insane conflict not of my making or consent?



+1

Concur fully.


----------



## Strike (6 Sep 2007)

phaedrus2 said:
			
		

> ...How do we judge the strategic air offensive against Fortress Europe?  There isn;t a simple answer.  On the one hand, hopes that air power would provide a cost-effective, clinical, and humane method of destroying the enemy's power base proved illusory.  Niether Axis nor Allied air attacks slowed overall production or destroyed civilian morale:  both went up under duress...
> 
> ...This pattern reached its extreme with the destruction of Dresden, an undefended city that had neither industrial nor military significance.  On February 13 and 14, 1945, the city was bombed three times by the RAF and U.S. Either Air Force, creating a fire storm that killed up to 135,000 people and destroyed irreplaceable examples of medieval architecture.  Military historian James M. Morris concluded that, by the time Germany surrendered, virtually nothing of any significance was left to bomb....
> 
> On the other hand, the air offensive did make significant contributions to the Allied victory in western Europe.  Although German industrial production climbed, the rate would have been higher without the bombings.  By using the bombers as decoys in daylight raids and accepting a high cost in crews, Americans drew the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition that virtually destroyed it by D-Day, vastly helping the success of the invasion and saving the lives of Allied ground forces."



And this could have been put on the panel and shown the controvery and the facts.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2007)

The problem is that it is rare to find a short summary which provides all the facts.  That is in part why it is such a controversial topic - there is too much selectivity, whether accidental or deliberate, with respect to the facts and factors.

It is true that German war production rose even while the SBC was in progress.  It is also true that Germany didn't undertake it's economic mobilization with full determination from the outset.  Going from memory, the Germans never equalled the level of war mobilization (mustering of all national resources) of the British or Russians; the Germans were still producing some consumer goods long after the British had stopped and retooled for war materiel.  The SBC can't be faulted for the fact the Germans left themselves room to expand production.

It is true that civilian morale was not necessarily crushed.  It is implausible that bombing had no effect.  It is also documented, in soldiers' letters, that they had to deal with the additional stress of knowing their families at home were at risk.  Greater stress - from whatever sources - generally reduces combat performance and will to fight.

It is true that workers and families were at risk to area bombing.  It is also true that in Germany it was the nature of industries to be closely surrounded by their associated work forces.  That was known to Allied analysts.  The bombing of workers (and their families) was deliberate, not collateral.  Industries and workers were (and are, if they produce war materiel) a legitimate target.  Their families should not be.  But the rules of war are also subject to the technology of war.  There was no technology of the time that could enable Allied forces to strike effectively only at industries and workers.

It is true that the Allies never managed to find a panacea target (the one industrial feature or capability which would, if removed, entirely collapse the German war effort).  It is true that right up to the close of the war, German mechanized and motorized forces could still conduct highly effective operations when they had the resources to do so.  It is true that into the fall of 1944 and later, Allied bombing efforts significantly curtailed German production of natural and synthetic fuels.  That likely saved Allied soldiers' lives and shortened the war.  And while some have claimed the lack of a panacea target as negating any excuse for strategic bombing, postwar analysis indicates such a target likely existed but was never resolutely attacked: the electrical power generation and delivery infrastructure.

It is true that Allied planes could roam at will seeking targets of opportunity - if they were tactical forces (fighter, fighter-bomber, light bomber) operating over France.  The strategic bombers still had to carefully plan routes of approach and deal with a German fighter force.

But my fundamental answer remains the same: all the Allied nations' leaders had the duty to conserve the lives of their soldiers (markedly so in the case of the conscripted), and - as a matter of statecraft and moral duty - a lesser duty to conserve the lives of enemy adults of the nations which prosecuted aggressive, racist, genocidal war.  The real difficulty with weighing the dilemma of combatants versus non-combatants is that we've never bothered to develop tradition or rules for the kind of industrial age total war we experienced, in a milieu in which there was such a marked separation between the just and unjust causes (nations).  People argue whether it was right to kill the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent a (disputed) estimate of half a million US service casualties.  I suspect I could have made the same decision if I thought it would save 5,000 US lives - and perhaps fewer or none, since it was also known that for every day a Japanese surrender was delayed, people were dying all over southeast Asia at the hands of the Japanese by act or neglect.  And in light of all that, I suppose some people should take the decision to start or enter a war much more seriously.


----------

