Today’s Observer carries a story concerning objections to a new war memorial that will be unveiled in Lincoln Cathedral next week. The memorial is to honour the 56,000 RAF bomber crewmen who died in WWII. To put this figure into a total of 120,000 men served in EAF bomber crews. I am here because my father is one of the 64,000 that survived the war. Let me just say that my sympathies are not with the Peace Pledge Union on this one. I do have a lot to say on this and the wider issue of BOTH allied AND axis bomber campaigns. I will return to this subject later.
RAF tribute stirs up 'war crime' storm
Some battles never end. For more than 60 years veterans of RAF Bomber Command have sought to escape the shadow of Britain's most controversial action in the Second World War: the firebombing of cities such as Dresden. Next week the 'heroes Britain chose to forget' will finally be recognised when a memorial is unveiled at Lincoln Cathedral, honouring the 55,888 aircrew that died. But far from healing the acrimonious debate, the tribute carved in Lincoln limestone has reopened old wounds.
The Peace Pledge Union, a pacifist organisation which demonstrated against the bombings at the time, regards the attack on Dresden as a crime against humanity and is dismissive of the memorial. 'This is part of the sentimental, nostalgic, crazy age we live in,' said its co-ordinator, Jan Melichar. 'Bombing civilians from the air was against a number of conventions, but the victors don't like to refer to their own actions as war crimes'.
The inscription in the cathedral will read: 'Dedicated to the men and women of Bomber Command 1939-45, over 55,000 of whom gave their lives in defence of our liberty.'
Douglas Hudson, now 90, a navigator on Lancasters, will unveil the memorial next Sunday along with Sylvia Watts, a member of Bomber Command clerical staff. Hudson said: 'The members of Bomber Command have had a very raw deal since the war. They have been accused by historians and writers of being murderers, destroying German culture. The critics don't think that 55,888 men gave their lives for this country.'
'Scotty' Scott, 70, who ran the campaign for a memorial, agreed: 'They are wonderful men and it's shameful they have not been recognised. They flew seven nights a week over Germany and were knocked out of the sky like ninepins at the start. They shortened the war by six months and saved hundreds of thousands from the gas chambers by bringing it to a halt. Politicians have treated Bomber Command disgracefully.'
There was strong support for the memorial from the Dresden Trust, a UK charity which helped to raise funds for the reconstruction of Dresden's Frauenkirche cathedral. Its chairman, Alan Russell, said: 'I do not think the Dresden raid was justified in the way it was conducted, but this is not to be taken as a criticism of Bomber Command.'
17 comments:
Ultimately, this is a debate about democracy.
Some people argue that Roosevelt and Churchill were war criminals for ordering the firebombing of Dresden (just like Hitler was a war criminal for ordering the firebombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Belgrade, etc. etc.).
But Britain and the USA were democracies. Ultimately, the responsability was whatever action the British or American governments took is spread out among almost half a billion voting citizens of both countries. It gives it a powerful legitimacy.
It was different with Nazi Germany. Hitler was a dictator. There, the responsability rested with him and the soldiers who followed orders of an unelected dictator. They were war criminals - not because they killed, but because they followed orders of someone who didn't have the legitimacy to give those orders. They cannot spread the responsability among German citizens.
Apparently, pacifists are incapable of understanding that crucial distinction.
Incidentally, by the same token, all Soviet actions in WWII were war crimes as well (Stalin was as much a dictator as Hitler). So ultimately, Roosevelt and Churchill greatest complicity in war crimes wasn't Dresden, but their alliance with Stalin.
Here is a problem with most of these far left pacifist types. They play this Howard Zinnesque game of indict a country by its history. Unless one is living in Monaco or Iceland one can do this with any country or movement.
The fact are prior to WW2 there was a gentlemans agreement about bombing civillians it wasn't done.
The bombing of Dresden came after
the blitz of London. The far left
likes to forget that.
the decisions of politicians can't be blamed on the folks who carried the orders out- hence support the troops and not the war here in the states. can't the same be said for this? these folks did brave things and died defending their country. you don't have to honor the folks who gave the order but honor the folks who carried it out because they had to do what they had to do.
Sonia Well said. you have given me a lot to ponder as I post on this matter in the future. There are some specifics worth considering - the effectiveness of the area bombing against the german war effort for example, but that is for another day, Me Brane urts too much for this subject tonight!
It was a news story that I saw the article on the very day I took my father to a reunion of veterans of the RAF Pathfinder Force. The news story went down like a lead balloon among these men, needless to say.
The logic of the PPU is flawed Beakerkin. I will take your word for Zinn.. I am not familiar with his writings. The only possible example of "area bombing" prior to WWII I can think of is Guernica possibly also, the attacks on Iraqi villages by the RAF in the 20s. These are debatable examples at best. I must check up to see if I am not wode of the mark by quoting them
Betmo, to be against the war is of course how one views the Iraq invasion (jams states the blindingly obvious once again!) BUT, the policy is not of the making of the troops on the ground. Vilifying soldiers for an act one does not agree with certainly does have a parallel with the vilification of the RAF Bomber crews of WWII. Both are fundamentally wrong.
"There, the responsability rested with him and the soldiers who followed orders of an unelected dictator." - Hmm. And those who follow orders of elected ones? This "I followed an order" (also here: very much depends on what level) - is an interesting question. What difference does tyranny make here, Sonia>? Did soldiers have a choice other than commit suicide or defect?
"all Soviet actions in WWII were war crimes as well" - I am as anti Soviet as one can be: but there was a war going on. The fact that they were executing the orders of a not elected monster makes them war criminals?
"So ultimately, Roosevelt and Churchill greatest complicity in war crimes wasn't Dresden, but their alliance with Stalin." - Was there an alternative?
Thanks for this post red. More to think about when.
When it came to winning the war we certainly did sup with one devil to defeat another
Jams
Totalitarians have a different concept of the value of life. When one is tied to an ISM one will make sacrafices to achieve Utopia.
Thus it is harldy surprising when one believes in Utopia in this world one can commit horrific crimes to make that Utopia a reality. The Utopians always fail
but they always fault the implementers of the scheeme rather than the notion that Utopia itself is possible.
Insert the Utopian idea of your choice.
"winning the war we certainly did sup with one devil to defeat another" - again, Jams: was there a choice? The whole world was to be upside down. Was that real support or alliance? The story begins before the war, and goes on AFTER it: when the monster did enjoy a real support.
I get the feeling that Britain and France felt they had done their bit for Poland by declaring war on Germany. The military action taken in direct support of Poland was non existent (a few french skirmishes in September 1939 do not warrant the word support). British and French pcts I think were to come to aid if Germany invaded. I don;t think anything was agreed about a Soviet invasion (perhaps it had not been considered - that I don't know). I can only imagine that a declaring war on the USSR was simply seen as biting off far more than could be chewed, but that is simply supposition on my part
There were plans by Chamberlain to support Finland in the Winter War but they came to absolutely nothing.
Neither of these actions coat Britain in glory, true, and there is no disagreement from me that Stalin was a monster.
THe scenario you put forward is interesting but may not have worked for a number of reasons. I will marshall my thoughts and set out why I think it might not have worked in my next comment
There were plans by Chamberlain to support Finland in the Winter War but they came to absolutely nothing.
I've read Lithuanian press articles from 1940 that explain why. When the Finns learned that the British wanted to help them, they immediately sued for peace with Stalin and agreed to all his terms. You know why ? Because getting help from Britain would have certainly provoked a German invasion, and after what happened to Poland, Finland didn't trust the Brits to defend them.
Finland learned from Polish mistakes and survived the war better than any other country bordering the Soviet Union.
Sonia I think somehow you are making the over simplification now.
I have no doubt the Finns were extremely sceptical of allied aid, given the Polish precedent. But the end of the Winter War was surely far, farmore to do with Finland's ability to continue the war.
Despite its astonishing ineptitude the Red Army was beginning to defeat the Finnish Army and make advances. Somehow I would imagine that was weighing on Finnish minds!
I won't disagree with you on the point that Finland came off far, far better than the other European nations bordering the USSR. Okay it lost a bit more land and had some restrictions on its military capabilities - not a bad result in the circumstances.
Jams,
I know it wounds your British pride ('Rule Britannia!!!'), but it's the painful truth. Finland won the Winter War. Soviet losses were staggering. Finns hold their positions. Militarily, they won completely. But they knew they couldn't fight a two-front war.
The articles I am refering to were published in a Vilnius daily newspaper 'Gazeta Codzienna' in March 1940, and were based on interviews with Finnish foreign ministry officials. At the time, Lithuania was still an independant country (it would be swallowed by Stalin a few month later).
Sonia. how does this affect my British sensibilites? Besides I am not dismissing, just expressing a degree of scepticism as the prime cause.
Finalnd won totally? They fought a superb fight and inflicted horrendous casualties on the Red Army but the Red Army had broken the Mannerheim line and was on the advance. If it had continued then perhaps Finland may have been conquered.
Losing a fair chunk of your land and a lot of your industrial capacity is not an utter defeat but it is hardly a total victory
By the way I am Irish. My passport has a does not have the lion and unicorn on it.
The most recent figures put the Soviet losses at a staggering 391,800 (Finland lost 22,000). As for the so-called Mannerheim Line, it was a myth. Finland exaggerated the defenses to boost morale at home, Stalin to explain his defeats. In reality, Mannerheim Line consisted of simple trenches. There were many other such lines of defense behind it, all the way to Helsinki.
another source appears to put the figure rather lower (around 128000) whichever figure is closest to teh truth, they are staggering losses. There is no arguing here that the Red Army took massive casualties.
I am fully aware that the Mannerheim line was no Maginot line. That said, it was still an effective stop line which held up the Red Army advance for months
I am in no doubt the Finns would have defended their fall back lines to the very best of their abilities but how long could the Finns have put up a fight? If the Finns were running out of munitions as it seems they were then it is doubtful they could have held these fall back positions for long.
There are certain phases in the history of the run up to WWII which have been omitted here.
The Munich Agreement of October 1938 allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland (then part of Czechoslovakia). It was signed by Germany, Italy, France and Britain. Czechoslovakia was not party to the discussions.
At this time Britain was attempting to 'appease' Nazi Germany. In March 1938 the English football team (Matthews, Lofthouse, Finney, et al.) gave the Hitler salute in the Olympic Stadium in Berlin.
Sonia's contention that 'democracies' cannot by definition engage in war crimes is facile.
As regards the behaviour of Bomber Command... Those men who flew over occupied Europe are all heroes to me. They, and their lost comrades deserve to be remembered for what they did. If a war crime was committed, and I think Dresden, Hamburg and other raids may fit the bill, then their commanders should be in the dock.
welcome to the Poor Mouth Mooney.
I think the reason why we had not discussed the issue of appeasement is simply because we haven't gotten around to it yet! Appeasement may have started with the best of intentions - to do anything to prevewnt the carnage of the trenches - it failed dismally and sold millions of people in Central Eastern Europe down the river... but that is for another post.
As for the bomber crews, they took dreadful losses and achieved far more that they are given credit for.
I would not describe either Hamburg or Dresden as awful events in an awful war but not war crimes. With Dresden in particular it is necessary to cut through a lot of emotional words to get to the heart of the matter. What remains is a legitimate target.
Post a Comment