Museum Plaque Altered To Appease Vet Pilots

[airnutz]

It's very easy to "Monday morning quarterback" war when all the facts are known. It's much different when you are in the time as it is happening. It is impossible to try and make sense of the business of killing other human beings. It is even more impossible to try and make sense of it if you weren't there.

Respectfuly speaking VG, we Monday Morn Quarterbacks have a very tough chore because
the facts are not necessarily "known". Remember, the victors write their history and the
vanquished have theirs. Some of our discussions keep coming back to these
same discussions over the past year(s)..not in my opinion because stupid opposites refuse to
succumb to the others points, but of people understanding different angles as to what truly happened
trying to put our finger on "fact"...is truly a frustrating exercise, and even more
frustrating to put into words. Not impossible, but certainly difficult.

As for making sense of it when we weren't there...I'd suggest reading the "period" writings
of the time. For the Japanese, read the factual of the change Perry's visit made in 1843
and later the worldwide racial profiling in the 1880's and on into the 20's and 30's and how that
affected their relationship to the US...and vice versa.

These are deep waters...

[L2Driver]

Just my simple opinion, if Allies target civilians soley to terrorize them, its not very moral. If there is an idustrial or military site then it is within the bounds of war. It is a thin line. Let's say Germany or Japan had bombed US aircraft factories. Many of the casualties would have been the civilian women working in them. Same with most targets. We are focussing this discussion on the morality; but the second part is the effectiveness. Sort of opposite the plaque, the Edwin Hoyt book "Angels of Death" about the Luftwaffe says by 1942 German aircraft production and crew training was falling and not keeping up with losses. Whether this is from the bombing or other factors is not laid out in this book in detail.

Viewed in the context of the times, I don't believe there was any moral ambiguity with regards to the bombing campaign. Factories turn out war material and factories are staffed by workers who live in the surrounding areas. Simple logic leads one to conclude that bombing the workers reduces/eliminates war production -- impeding the ability to continue the fight.

The thread has drifted from the original topic of changes to the plaque but, to refocus, I'll restate that, IMO, applying modern values/spins/perceptions to the bombing campaign is wrong and does a great disservice to those who actually had to execute the missions/ops, especially considering the casualty rates among the crews.

To add a bit to Bill's comments: War by its very nature leaves morality behind. There's no such thing as a good war -- at least not for the participants.

[vg-photo]

I hear what you are saying airnutz, what I meant was that there are some that want to pass judgment on what was done, or how it was done, etc when they weren't there experiencing what was going on. To say a soldier/officer/whomever should have done X when all the variables and intel are known is quite simple. Those things were very likely unknown to the participants at the time. Decisions made on the fly, often in the heat of battle will make you a hero, or a fool.

I do a lot of reading from the period and it is very interesting to read the stories and anecdotes. Even with these, it isn't right for me to pass judgment on anything that any of these guys did, or how they did it.

[airnutz]

I hear what you are saying airnutz, what I meant was that there are some that want to pass judgment on what was done, or how it was done, etc when they weren't there experiencing what was going on. To say a soldier/officer/whomever should have done X when all the variables and intel are known is quite simple. Those things were very likely unknown to the participants at the time. Decisions made on the fly, often in the heat of battle will make you a hero, or a fool.

I do a lot of reading from the period and it is very interesting to read the stories and anecdotes. Even with these, it isn't right for me to pass judgment on anything that any of these guys did, or how they did it.

Ahh, I agree. Yes, the crews were doing their jobs and should bear no critique
for following the directives of their leaders.

L2Driver is quite right, we have strayed from the intent of the thread and my
2cents didn't really help. I'll try to amend that..

[airnutz]

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed." "...I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

Churchill said this in '45 after the bombing of Dresden. What makes it more clear

Interesting that you should cite that particular quote of Churchill's, 'Boots. I believe you
are interpreting it out of context as DHfan alluded to in his post.

Churchill made that statement in response to the public uproar over the civilian
casualty quotes...some of which came from Goerbles at 10 times the actual
number. Churchill was basically attempting to withdraw hisself from his involvement in
the planning and initiation of that campaign...and attempted to leave Bomber Harris and others to twist in the wind. I believe he later retracted and softened his statement.

Revisionists would have us believe that Dresden had no military or industrial worth
to the Allies, but they are mistaken. At that point in war the Soviets were driving the Germans west.
At Yalta it was discussed that if Allied bombing ran along a north/south line of industrial/military/transport/communication
targets, then the German military would be split into 2 pockets. If Dresden,
a major railroad center, was spared then the Germans would have a way to transfer
materiel to and fro. Dresden had to be bombed. The civlian casualties were a sad but necessary outcome.

The Japanese city bombings were an entirely different case. Most of their war production
capabilities were scattered throughout the cities in small cottage shops. Much
like Al Qaeda spreads it's forces and supplies within the population today.

I think I have most of this correct, but feel free to correct me...

[tom d. friedman]

some what true, but the japanese also had alot of heavy industry facilities. those "cottage works" mentioned mostly made accessories or components for everything from A to Z toward the war effort, & was not really efficient in quality / quantity production toward big items like ships planes tanks, etc. most of the cottage production was more like stuff such as firing pins, gaskets, shoe soles etc.

[muddyboots]

"The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested,"
This uproar is silly and embarassing. A man who can't look what he did during war in the face and appraise it honestly won't make it very high in my estimation.
We did indeed target civilians. And it was indeed morally objectinable. It was also deemed miltarily necessary, thus allowing briefers to describe their targets to Sam as a military target. If I was assigning targets, I would have done the same. If I was a bombardier I would have dropped on civilians, with the regret filled drive of someone who knows it is necessary.

I know everybody is entititled to an opinion, but not to create their own facts. Therefore I repeat that all missions, bar none, were briefed for a military or industrial target with specified latitude and longitude, nearby landmarks (roads, rivers, bridges, railways, etc.) along with the target's function and importance. I need not repeat that many of these targets were erected in areas adjacent to civlian housing, schools, hospitals, etc., and were thus subject to severe collateral damage. The concept of pinpoint bombing achieved at 5000 feet on a calm clear day over Arizona, was much less attainable from 25000 feet over German flak filled skies, often through heavy cloud coverage and varying wind.conditions.
The Royal Air Force bombed at night and were thus forced into carpet bombing of German cities, but no mission of the 8th Air Force was directed at anything but military or industrial targets. NEVER.
Furthermore, if you as a bombardier dropped on civilians rather than the briefed target, you would be facing one heck of a court-martial.

Sam, no offense, please, but that is sugar. We intentionally dropped on plenty of civilians during WWII. As I stated, those who made the decision to bomb population centers did so knowing that they would be crucified by the public at home, and would have mass mutinies, if it was admitted taht the bombings were done specifically to civilians. Therefore, military targets were identified which a) didn't exist b) had no great value or c) were already badly damaged. They were chosen to allow the bombing of population centers.
This has been admitted by numerous high ranking officials from Churchill, who I quoted, to Curtiss Lemay. You simply can't refute the admission, by people who made the decisions, that we bombed civilians in order to destroy their moral and shorten the war. It was done. You personally may not have. As I said, had I been ordered to BACK THEN I would have done it, because it was indeed under the acts of war, and it was indeed deemed necessary. We have since learned otherwise, but hindsight is a luxury the Allied leadership did not have back then.

As for your comment about being court martialed. I stated quite clearly that I have been forced to shoot at civilians. Guess what? No Court Martial. Why? It was deemed necessary for the defense of my men, as the civilians were being "used" as cover for shooters. This is the same justification for bombing Berlin to the ground. All those tenament buildings concealed anti aircraft (he he he) communications and other facilities. But the real target (again as admitted by plenty of allied leadership) was the civilians.

Airnutz, do you really believe that Bomber Harris made any major decisions like that without the knowledge of Churchill? Do you think that even if Churchill didn't "know", that Harris wasn't making the decision on his own? We bombed civilians to break their moral. Our military leadership knew and condoned it, and it was both tragic and necessary using what we knew at the time.

The Germans killed 6 million jews. 25 Million Russians, I believe. Whether the German people knew or not doesn't matter. If bombing the snakesnot out of them would make them stop, we were going to do it, same as we burnt thousands of Japanese civilians to death to make them stop. Worked, too, dinnit?

I do not like war. I have been a lot closer than most of you to the smoking hole it makes. I am a firm believer in the sooner we finish it the sooner we can be human beings again. If we needed to grind every major city in Germany and Japan into the dirt to end that war, then so be it. But please, let's not hide what we did.
Instead, lets not let the "victims of our brutality" hide what they did, which is obviously far worse than their punishment for their crimes. In my eyes, THAT would be a true crime. We MUST remember these things, in the hope that future politicall leaders will recognize that there is retribution for their crimes. And the people who elect them need to know that their families, thier jobs, their land, their danged dogs will be snuffed out if they follow a crazy man in an attempt to subjugate the world again.

Last edited by muddyboots on Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[muddyboots]

Just my simple opinion, if Allies target civilians soley to terrorize them, its not very moral. If there is an idustrial or military site then it is within the bounds of war. It is a thin line. Let's say Germany or Japan had bombed US aircraft factories. Many of the casualties would have been the civilian women working in them. Same with most targets. We are focussing this discussion on the morality; but the second part is the effectiveness. Sort of opposite the plaque, the Edwin Hoyt book "Angels of Death" about the Luftwaffe says by 1942 German aircraft production and crew training was falling and not keeping up with losses. Whether this is from the bombing or other factors is not laid out in this book in detail.

Bill, I have never disagreed with you but this once

If we know (as we did) what a nation is doing (the holocaust), it is morally required that we do ANYTHING that will stop them doing what they are doing. It is our responsibility to put everything we can into making them unable to murder anyone else. If terrorizing civilians, and burning them in their beds, helped bring that war to a close then all I can really do is salute the men who made the descision to bomb babies. The Germans murdered more civilians than we managed to kill through all of our bombing. And the murders would have gone on and on if we hadn't done what we did. I know that one bad thing doesn't necessarily justify another bad thing. But in some cases it does indeed. I think the German nation (and Japan) gave up all of their human rights when they sold their souls to a madman for safe jobs and national pride.

Burning Dresden to the ground was effective towards what end? Stopping road communication, when there was no gas? Stopping rail communication when there was almost no coal, and no trains to use it? No, that was simply another disguised attempt to break the German will to fight. And it WAS effective. Those people in Dresden didn't resist one bit after we burnt them to ashes, did they? And they certainly didn't tell their sons on the front they were fine, thus allowing the sons to continue fighting without worries.

And for effectiveness: Japanese cottage industry didn't really effect their air power, as I am sure you kinow. It was their burtal and moronically slow system of training pilots which hurt them the most. They simply couldn't replace their pilots as the dwindled from combat losses.

[Tom H]

As I have just joined the forum this is my first post.

I am the Executive Director of the Alberta Aviation Museum in Canada and I am one of the those that supported having the Canadian War Museum plaque taken down and being revised.

The reason:

A Musesums duty is to present history, both sides impartially and let the visitor or viewer decide on the issues.

This plaque did not do that, it very clearly biased the reader to the view that the writer chose.

In museums we call this interpertation, something that has become quite fashionable, but I am very opposed to history being interperted for people.

Several have said, we need to present history with all it's warts" very true, but it must be done from all points of view.

How can a teenager today understand Allied strategic bombing if they have no idea of the enemies strategic bombing and other events that lead to the decisions to institute the bomber campaign.

History is very much the foundation of the house we build, a strong foundation makes for a strong house.

To those that served...thank you, tyour scarifice allows us to debate today.

Per Ardua, Ad Astra


Tom H

[vg-photo]

Thanks Tom for that post and letting us know about it.

[muddyboots]

As I have just joined the forum this is my first post.

I am the Executive Director of the Alberta Aviation Museum in Canada and I am one of the those that supported having the Canadian War Museum plaque taken down and being revised.

The reason:

A Musesums duty is to present history, both sides impartially and let the visitor or viewer decide on the issues.

This plaque did not do that, it very clearly biased the reader to the view that the writer chose.

In museums we call this interpertation, something that has become quite fashionable, but I am very opposed to history being interperted for people.

Several have said, we need to present history with all it's warts" very true, but it must be done from all points of view.

How can a teenager today understand Allied strategic bombing if they have no idea of the enemies strategic bombing and other events that lead to the decisions to institute the bomber campaign.

History is very much the foundation of the house we build, a strong foundation makes for a strong house.

To those that served...thank you, tyour scarifice allows us to debate today.

Per Ardua, Ad Astra


Tom H

Thanks Tom, for that explanation. I agree with you The full story needs to be preserved and promoted so that fuiture generations understand what really happened. In many ways today, we've fallen to the mistake of believing that just because someone claimed it, it must be true.

[daveymac82c]

I agree as well. That plaque was biased to one side, and as noted, museums "should" present both or all sides of a historical event. Again, the original version of the plaque was leaning towards describing RCAF pilots as evil and bad people. The other side was ignored, so I am happy that they are changing the plaque. I don't think it's fair to teach people one side of stories. To really teach people you have to give them both sides of a story and let the person decide on their own. I disagree with forcing opinions on people.

-David

[fritzthefox]

There was a similar tussle between museum staff and veteran's groups when deciding how to put the Enola Gay on display in the Smithsonian.

It's funny how squeamish people get about war once the events have lost their emotional impetus.

The morality of strategic bombing has been hotly debated ever since it was first realized as even a possibility. There was an international treaty signed (and eventually ignored) by most ot he industrialized nations of the world even before the events of WWI banning the military use of air machines. I expect the current non-militarization of space treaties will end the same way. (In fact, you could argue they already have, given the extensive use of satellites for modern war-making).

When second-guessing bombing campaigns of the past, I think it is important to remember that:

1) The Japanese and Germans had absolutely no inhibition regarding the bombing of civilians, either. Wars tend to be tit-for-tat affairs, at least if the combatants wish to stay alive. Practical reasons aside, it's only human to want to hit back. I don't remember too many dissenting voices about bombing anyone following 9/11. In fact, we were all a little impatient for someone to choose a target. I would've hand-delivered a nuke anywhere in the world in a hand cart, if I had suspected the culprits were somewhere nearby. (And I wasn't just bitter because I was grounded three days after earning my pilot's license. Arrgghh.)

Wars are not rational affairs.

2) No one during that time was certain how much damage to enemy military potential was truly being done by strategic bombing. Everyone who has ever launched any strategic bombing campaign has tended to overestimate its military effects. Heck, I watched the latest "Shock and Awe" aerial campaign on TV with somewhat the same feeling I had watching Geraldo open Al Capones vault.

3) The Zeppelin raids on London did laughable material damage to Britain's war effort, but their psychological impact was huge, producing a great deal of hysteria. I think much of the "terror bombing" of WW2 was a futile effort to recapture that initial bit of future shock. However, most weapons are only scary until the guy on the receiving end learns how to fight back. (Same story with Russian helicopters vs. Mujahadeen...first they ran, then they got Stingers. End of shock and awe.)

4) It is impossible to measure lost potential. German weapons production increased throughout the war, but no one can say how much more it might have increased had its activities not been disrupted. A lot of Allied bombing was a trial and error effort to find the achilles heel of the German war machine. Eventually they did, once they started hitting the oil refineries and transportation routes.
Japanese war production was definitely degraded by strategic fire bombing. In fact, napalm probably would have eventually ended the war just as effectively as the A-bomb...just a little bit slower, and with greater loss of life.

History passes some harsh moral judgements on people for doing what they have always done: making emotionally-charged decisions based on inadequate knowledge. I doubt future historians will look too kindly on many things we are all doing today with complete self-assuredness.

Everybody's a critic.