Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When a Lancaster bomber showers Green Park in central London with poppies on Thursday, it will be the first chance in almost 70 years for surviving crew to formally recognise their fallen friends.
Almost half of the 125,000 Bomber Command lost their lives - more than today's entire RAF personnel - yet their courage dodging night fighters and anti-aircraft fire has never been officially marked until now.
Good article. It touches on many of the "morality" debates that have been raging around here lately. It takes a pretty neutral stance on the issue which is good. I personally see nothing wrong with remembering those who died on the missions, same as I would not be opposed to a memorial to the people who died from the bombs. Ultimately everyone needs to remember that war is hell and in WW2 it was all about ultimate victory at any price. If anything the lesson is to remember that any nation and people will do what's necessary in their minds to ensure victory even if it means giving up on their own values and morality. The primary exception I take is when the Allies are painted as moral crusading knights in white armor, it was far more complicated then that. When one really studies the decisions and what happened in regards to the bomber campaigns in Europe, you are left with the realization that much was done out of a sense of desperation and revenge not for some calculated military advantage.
When one really studies the decisions and what happened in regards to the bomber campaigns in Europe, you are left with the realization that much was done out of a sense of desperation and revenge not for some calculated military advantage.
I don't know if "desperation and revenge" covers all of the multiple motives at work. The heads of the bomber commands were engaged in an ongoing effort to have their branch of the service seen as equal to the land and sea arms. In the case of Harris, he very much wanted to prove that the war could be won by bombing alone. That same idea seemed to grip LeMay in the Pacific in the final months of the war in that theater. So, professional career interests played a part.
Churchill and FDR were under intense pressure from Stalin to open up a second front and the bombing campaign served to establish at least the appearance that the western allies were holding up their end of the deal, even if the invasion of Europe would be delayed well past Stalin's desires. The bombing campaign was also seen as a morale booster for the British population..."we are giving as good as we are taking" was the mentality that they wished to promote, the idea that "we are fighting back somewhere." That isn't revenge so much as it is trying to avoid appearing helpless and impotent compared to the Nazi war machine. So the politics of the dynamic played a part as well.
I don't know if "desperation and revenge" covers all of the multiple motives at work. The heads of the bomber commands were engaged in an ongoing effort to have their branch of the service seen as equal to the land and sea arms. In the case of Harris, he very much wanted to prove that the war could be won by bombing alone. That same idea seemed to grip LeMay in the Pacific in the final months of the war in that theater. So, professional career interests played a part.
Churchill and FDR were under intense pressure from Stalin to open up a second front and the bombing campaign served to establish at least the appearance that the western allies were holding up their end of the deal, even if the invasion of Europe would be delayed well past Stalin's desires. The bombing campaign was also seen as a morale booster for the British population..."we are giving as good as we are taking" was the mentality that they wished to promote, the idea that "we are fighting back somewhere." That isn't revenge so much as it is trying to avoid appearing helpless and impotent compared to the Nazi war machine. So the politics of the dynamic played a part as well.
All very good and accurate points. I tried to imply "depseration" as what drove a lot of these acts. Bomber command was desperate to prove its ability to wage a war. Churchill and FDR were desperate to do something to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Churchill in particular was desperate to do something to show the British people they were fighting back, etc.
The actual genesis of the campaign, its intent and the many conversations that happened during the war about its effect could fill many threads and was a very complex issue and yes, rather controversial at the time.
A little more on the story (not necessarily history related but i thought you might like to know a little about the ceremony that was mentioned in the initial article).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
