'I would have destroyed Dresden again': Bomber Harris was unrepentant over German city raids

Bomber Harris, the RAF commander who ordered the destruction of Dresden towards the end of WWII stated, in a lost interview made in 1977, that he would do it again.

The attack was widely criticised because of 'blanket bombing' which hit civilian areas as well as military targets - killing thousands of innocents.

...chief commander of the Bomber Command tells his interviewer, Air Vice Marshal Tony Mason, that he would do it again if he had to.

He said: 'If I had to have the same time again I would do the same again, but I hope I wouldn’t have to.'

Sir Arthur then adds: 'I hope it’s been of some use, for future generations in keeping them out of these riots. It never does anybody any good.'

During the interview, Mason discusses how many felt the Dresden attack was 'a city too far'.

However Harris stood his ground saying: 'The bombers kept over a million fit Germans out of the German army… Manning the anti-aircraft defences; making the ammunition, and doing urgent repairs, especially tradesmen.'

D aily Mail

I have to agree with Harris. Germany had invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Poland and Russia. It had started an indiscriminate bombing campaign over London in 1940. For much of the war, the only way for the British to hit back at the Germans was to bomb their cities - a thing the Germans had already done themselves to civilian targets.

Bomber Command veteran Doug Radcliffe, 89, who is now secretary of the Bomber Command Association, backed his former commander.

He told the Daily Express: 'Our raids meant there were 10,000 88mm anti-aircraft guns pointing up to the sky instead of at our troops and the Russians.

'Dresden was a major centre for the manufacture of opticals, such as gun sights and binoculars.'

He added: 'After Dresden we lost another 700 bombers, and London was being hit by V2s which nobody could fight against.'

D aily Mail

The Germans were hitting London with V2s when Dresden was being destroyed and Dresden was itself an important centre of optics manufacture.

I have also read of two important reasons for bombing Dresden

1. It served to warn the Russians what of the power of bomber command to help put the Russians off of driving the Allies into the channel (they were vastly superior in numbers to the allies and were technically superior in terms of tanks and arguably aircraft).

2. It bomber command campaign against German cities served to teach the Germans the lesson that making a habit of invading other countries was not entirely without consequence. In the space of 70 years Germany had invaded France three times. After the devastation of Germany in 1943-1945, the Germans had little appetite to invade Western Europe a 4th time.

It should also be remembered that Bomber Harris was only carrying out British government policy. He did it well. Towards the end of WWII, Bomber Command could mount 1,000 bomber raids against German cities, effectively destroying their ability to contribute to the German war effort for a significant period of time.

reply to post by ollncasino


If there is a hell, I am sure it's full of sophists.

Originally posted by AdAstra
reply to post by ollncasino

 

If there is a hell, I am sure it's full of sophists.

Let's just hope it isn't full of the crews of British WWII bombers

Dresden be damned. The Germans must be really stupid to think they could bomb other nation's cities and get away with not being paid back. I bet there aren't many Basques from Guernica or residents of Coventry and London who wrung their hands over bomber command's choice of targets.

Originally posted by ollncasino


I have to agree with Harris. Germany had invaded France, Belgium, Holland, Poland and Russia. It had started an indiscriminate bombing campaign over London in 1940. For much of the war, the only way for the British to hit back at the Germans was to bomb their cities - a thing the Germans had already done themselves to civilian targets.

edit on 11-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

You agree with death and suffering of innocent children and women? what is the difference between you and a sadistic concentration camp guard?

It was France and Britain that declared war on Germany, and Germany would propose peace which is rejected by the warmongers. Had the allies allowed Germany to establish her right by working a deal with poland between 1933-1939 there would have been no war, but the Brits encouraged Poland into refusing any talks with germany in regards to the danzig corridor, then the Polish begun attacks on the German minority within Poland. You overlook this fact and jump onto the Allies propaganda wagon like a blind sheep.

Germany DID NOT START a bombing campaign over London in 1940, they begun operation sealion of targeting military assets and airfields and radar stations. Later it was Churchill (not the dog) who orders the RAF to begin targeting German civilian cities, this provokes the Luftwaffe to respond by targeting English civilian cities which would become known as the Blitz. This allowed the RAF to reorganize at the cost of thousands of lives, but hey, the Brits won the battle over Britain.

I do not agree with Germanys views of the Jews, however when you blab some garbage that has no back up trying to sway opinion is just childish and silly. look up real facts before wasting this forums bandwidth.

I condemn Bomber Harris and wish he was tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, what different is this piece of **** from other war criminals.

Originally posted by RizeorDie
I do not agree with Germanys views of the Jews, however when you blab some garbage that has no back up trying to sway opinion is just childish and silly. look up real facts before wasting this forums bandwidth.

I don't understand why you must become personally abusive. I have studied military history as an amateur historian for many years.

My OP does not amount to 'blabbing some garbage'. I know of all of the facts you allude to in your posts. Yet you appear to be somewhat ignorant of the facts I cite in mine.

Originally posted by RizeorDie

I condemn Bomber Harris and wish he was tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, what different is this piece of **** from other war criminals.

I don't doubt for a moment that Harris would have been tried for war crimes if the Germans had won. But then, so would Churchill and Roosevelt.

The victors write the history.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Germany invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway (admittedly only narrowly beating the British to it) and the Soviet Union.

The Germans did launch an aggressive war of conquest in WWII. They are far from blameless. If they had wanted to save their cities at the end of WWII they could have surrendered. They chose to not do so.

reply to post by ollncasino


I agree - it was another time and it is all too easy for many in the 21st century to judge with their comfy sofa hats in situ, they were not there.

My family were greatly affected by a London destroyed by a million bombs.

Harris wanted to break the spirit and the back of the Germans... he had reason.

the bombinmg of dresden was awful but so was the bombing of London and other English / British cities.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by RizeorDie


so I take it you wanted a German Europe ? How would that have benefited Syria ?
Germany did lose the war - but you can take solice from the fact that they have worked really hard behind the scenes for the past 70 years to ensure, Britain's downfall and that of many other European countries.

Your hate for Britain is very obvious ..

Originally posted by RizeorDie

your OP is the most useless amount of garbage ever posted on the internet hands down, you know all the facts just to overlook them, whats the point of knowing then? oh wow i'm impressed, you cited all your facts; the daily mail lmao

They (Harris, Churchill & Roosevelt) are all criminals

I really do fail to see the need for you to become so abusive.

It is also interesting that you state that Churchill and Roosevelt were war criminals. I see your location is set as Damascus yet you are familiar with British TV adverts (you made a reference to Churchill, not the dog).

It seems a possibility that you are a British Arab.

to be fair it was not just the uk who hit dresden the us airforce hit it by day and the brits hit it by night.star and flag op and ignore the revisionist historians that like to label every one war criminals as at the time carpet bombing was the norm.if Germany didnt want its cities bombed it shouldnt have lost ww1 and then started smack again their lebensraum(sp i know) got them into the mess they were in. and while dresden was at the end of the conflict had we not been successful in our bombing campaigns it would have been soviet troops occupying all of germany and after all the raping and pillaging that went down(from soviet hands) after their loss i think this period of time in Germany was called selbstmord en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org... as to dresden being a non legitimate target....it was a comunications hub for the german army and with only 25,000 casualties it pales in comparison to most real atrocities committed during the war

and of interesting note its where putin was stationed during the cold war from 1985-1990

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


That is correct - there were 24 hr bombing raids against Germany at that stage in the war, The USAF during the day, the RAF at night. It destroyed her cities, or many of them. But many at the time felt she had to be bombed into submission and surrender.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by RizeorDie

your OP is the most useless amount of garbage ever posted on the internet hands down, you know all the facts just to overlook them, whats the point of knowing then? oh wow i'm impressed, you cited all your facts; the daily mail lmao

They (Harris, Churchill & Roosevelt) are all criminals

I really do fail to see the need for you to become so abusive.

It is also interesting that you state that Churchill and Roosevelt were war criminals. I see your location is set as Damascus yet you are familiar with British TV adverts (you made a reference to Churchill, not the dog).

It seems a possibility that you are a British Arab.

I watch more Youtube than the average person being that my Job requires me to do, thus I am exposed to all sorts of cultures and thus I have learned to see the others side of view, hence this could explain the reason behind my abusive comment as I completely fail to see how you justify the bombing of civilians, I dont care who is doing it; it is wrong no matter what, its never justified. Its like poisoning all the fish in the sea just to kill a shark. I have watched over 3000 adverts from more countries than I could count as part of research for TV from Beruit. I am a Christian Lebanese Arab.

which brings us to a question possibly brewing in your mind; Is Bashar Al Assad killing civilians?

No, he isnt and wasnt, it is the rebels killing civilians, all the massacres have been proved to be deaths of Syrian officials and their families, minorities, government workers and pro government civilians, there are videos to vouch for this. On the alter of that, there are unintentional deaths on behalf of the SAA, but through my eyes, the Syrian Army is truly fighting terrorists.

reply to post by HelenConway

www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org...
yeah and considering we killed close to 100,000 in hamburg in comparable raids that no one calls war crimes(as at the time they werent illegal or war crimes)same for the firebombing of toyko that is considered the most devastating bombing raid of all time...... what people today dont get looking BACK at these kinds of things is war was different then and trying to judge it by todays laws isnt valid,also helps that the people we were fighting were doing horrible shady stuff(nazi experiments death camps,the Japanese killing of civilians and pow's the rape of Nanking and unit 731) im sure people will bring up the nukeing of japan but those werent war crimes either as at the time nothing made using nuclear weapons illegal(not sure if they are even illegal now either) and as the two nukes only killed aprox 200k people and while that sounds like a lot if you compare the death rates with conventional/firebombing even these bombs were nothing compared to the sustained and legal bombing campaigns used by all sides in ww2
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by RizeorDie


funny i dont rember being taught history through youtube videos.....i guess that means they are not considered credible as most people from the ufo forum can attest to.just because you see it on the internet does not make it true or more accurate then other sources,as to the Syrian issue well when it gets resolved one way or another the victor will write history and the events will be seen in that light for good or bad. as a general rule in cival wars i tend to go with the underdogs which in this case would be the syrian rebels (or terrorists as you called them)

one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist we just dont get to find out who is who tell their is a winner

and while the legue of nations had several provisions that if they had stayed around at the time MIGHT have made these bombings illegal those laws and acts were not in effect after the death of the legue of nations (near the end of the war) and due to the vaugness of the terms limiting the bombing of civilians mixed with the tech of the day made it baisicly an un enforceable law as all you had to say was you aimed at a military target from high up but the bomb didnt go where u wanted it to (pre smart bombs remember?)www.dannen.com...

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible: I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations: 1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal; 2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable; 3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence; II. Also takes the opportunity to reaffirm that the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law, as recalled more particularly in the resolution of the General Commission of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of July 23rd 1932, and the resolution of the Council of May 14th, 1938.

so it seems this measure was never passed but brought up as a option not a law.

reply to post by RizeorDie


Syria's civil war has nothing what so ever to do with WW2 which is what we are talking about,
U tube videos are not credible per se .. nor is wikipaedia.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by RizeorDie

 

funny i dont rember being taught history through youtube videos.....i guess that means they are not considered credible as most people from the ufo forum can attest to.just because you see it on the internet does not make it true or more accurate then other sources,as to the Syrian issue well when it gets resolved one way or another the victor will write history and the events will be seen in that light for good or bad. as a general rule in cival wars i tend to go with the underdogs which in this case would be the syrian rebels (or terrorists as you called them)

one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist we just dont get to find out who is who tell their is a winner

1. that post wasnt directed at you and therefore you shoudnt reply unless you come to understand the full conversation I was having with the OP.

2. it was in relation to my job, nothing to do with history. I watch a lot of adverts on youtube, hence the reason I know about churchill the dog (from british TV) in replying to the OP claiming that I am a British Arab. I am not a british citizen nor watch british TV, i watch adverts from all over the world as part of research for a TV channel in beruit, Lebanon

As for the rest of your post, I couldnt care less about your opinion, if you blow people up, torture, execute, destroy and rape thus terrorizing people then you are a TERRORIST! PERIOD.

regards

Click here for more information.

**ATTENTION**

The personal attacks and Off Topic remarks will end here.

Further violations of Terms & Conditions will result in a 72hr posting ban, followed by a review of your account by staff.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

reply to post by RizeorDie


oh im sorry i need permission to talk to you? didnt find that part in the T and c of ats....wow war is not supposed fuzzy or friendly its war the sole job of war is to kill and demoralize your opponents (read kill their military and demoralize their population)so that the concept of fighting back looks worse then capitulating. its not hand holding or talking about working through diplomatic efforts (hint thats called diplomacy)

over time the rules and regulations of war have changed to reflect the changes in morals and technology that have come over time.back in the day it was pretty much standard practice(bc times etc) to rape the women kill the men and toss the babies from the walls then enslave who was left,no one calls the ancient Greeks war criminals or the vikings because at the time they were killing each other and doing said things they were not considered crimes but the standard operating procedure so to again restate my point looking BACK with todays values on past events does not change the fact that when those events happened it was the norm of battle and the customs of the day