Sir Arthur Harris: Dutiful Soldier or War Criminal?

[harmonica]

At killing kids? Sure. But I understand targeted bombing of transport infrastructure was much more effective against the German war machine,

....there you go right there = you don't know anything about WW2/etc -'''targeted''' = bombing in WW2 was not smart bombing/laser bombing
......especially night bombing --which they did to keep down losses......
.....you are very shallow in your thinking......like the BIG issue of today in the US.....you think it's like a cop movie or TV show.....you think it's like a board game....it's not

 

[fncceo]

At killing kids?

Call me a monster, but I'm having a bit of trouble working up a lot of sympathy for the Nazis.

 

[whitehall]

What is CODOH and why would the modern Brit "CODOH" target one of their own WW2 heroes as a "war criminal"? The acknowledged allied strategy at the time was to bomb civilians until the maniacs surrendered. Nobody in the U.S. wants to brand Col. Tibbits as a war criminal. Where does this stuff come from.

 

[rupol2000]

Against the backdrop of other crimes of the Allies during World War II, this is childish talk. Stalin bombed his own citizens, and Churchill starved several million Bengalis.

They did not fall under the tribunal only because they won, and the winners are not judged by the winners themselves.

 

[whitehall]

Against the backdrop of other crimes of the Allies during World War II, this is childish talk. Stalin bombed his own citizens, and Churchill starved several million Bengalis.

They did not fall under the tribunal only because they won, and the winners are not judged by the winners themselves.

Churchill did no such thing. The U.K. was under attack daily by German bombers andV2 rockets in 1943 while there was a famine in Bengal. It's alleged that the British Prime Minister did nothing to help Bengal but he did everything he could while the rest of the world stood back and watched. It's puzzling how these charges take root among people who live in freedom today because of efforts by leaders like Churchill and Sir Arthur Harris.

 

[rupol2000]

Churchill did no such thing. The U.K. was under attack daily by German bombers andV2 rockets in 1943 while there was a famine in Bengal. It's alleged that the British Prime Minister did nothing to help Bengal but he did everything he could while the rest of the world stood back and watched. It's puzzling how these charges take root among people who live in freedom today because of efforts by leaders like Churchill and Sir Arthur Harris.

No, he just took all the produced food from the Bengalis and left them to die. This scenario was already worked out in the 30s by the Bolsheviks, they made hungry pestilences in the fertile regions of Russia and Ukraine, taking away the entire harvest, apparently in this way they got rid of unwanted peoples by doing ethnic cleansing. Churchill also said that he did not like Bengalis

Here we can still assume that they killed the Bengalis because they suspected that they came from the ancient Aryans, and this decision was not made personally by Churchill, but only implemented on his behalf.
And there were grounds for such assumptions

 

[rupol2000]

Assumptions that there was nowhere else to take food for military needs except in Bengal, in my opinion, is untenable, because the Allies and especially Britain itself had many sources all over the world, including the British colonies themselves.

 

[rupol2000]

British Prime Minister did nothing to help Bengal

At least there is information that the British colonial administration removed 80,000 tons of food grain from Bengal in the first seven months of 1943 alone, in addition, boats and other vehicles were seized, and infrastructure was disrupted. This is information from Wikipedia with reference to 2 sources, one of which is very reliable and unbiased: History of World War II 1939-1945 / BG Solovyov. - Moscow: Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, 1976. - T. 7. - P. 467.

 

[rupol2000]

It's really amazing how people can still live in such a state

 

[rupol2000]

Even photographs of glodomors in Russia and Ukraine cannot be compared with this horror. They died there in a more well-fed state.

 

[rupol2000]

By the way, probably Bengal is the most fertile land in India, at least one of the most fertile lands.

 

[rupol2000]

According to British sources, 3-4 million people died, according to Indian - 7 million.

 

[whitehall]

No, he just took all the produced food from the Bengalis and left them to die. This scenario was already worked out in the 30s by the Bolsheviks, they made hungry pestilences in the fertile regions of Russia and Ukraine, taking away the entire harvest, apparently in this way they got rid of unwanted peoples by doing ethnic cleansing. Churchill also said that he did not like Bengalis

Here we can still assume that they killed the Bengalis because they suspected that they came from the ancient Aryans, and this decision was not made personally by Churchill, but only implemented on his behalf.
And there were grounds for such assumptions

 

[whitehall]

In 1943 the future of the U.K. was in doubt. British shipping was under constant attack by German U-Boats. Convoluted left wing opinion could make a case that Churchill favored his own country with crucial supplies while India remained helpless to feed their own citizens but it doesn't make Churchill a war criminal, In fact it makes him a patriot.

 

[rupol2000]

In 1943 the future of the U.K. was in doubt. British shipping was under constant attack by German U-Boats. Convoluted left wing opinion could make a case that Churchill favored his own country with crucial supplies while India remained helpless to feed their own citizens but it doesn't make Churchill a war criminal, In fact it makes him a patriot.

I don’t care about the “future of the British Empire,” which fall apart after the war anyway, the “petriotism” of this pig-like policy does not interest me either I am talking directly about crimes.

By the way, the British imperialists shed a lot of blood in the USA too

 

[rupol2000]

while India remained helpless to feed their own citizens

Don't play with words. First, we are not talking about all of India, but directly about Bengal. Secondly, as already mentioned, this is not about "left without help", but about the deliberate withdrawal of food and the destruction of economic infrastructure.

 

[rupol2000]

India did not need any "help", it was not they who fought with Germany
The best help they could give was to leave the illegally occupied territories.

 

[surada]

Churchill did no such thing. The U.K. was under attack daily by German bombers andV2 rockets in 1943 while there was a famine in Bengal. It's alleged that the British Prime Minister did nothing to help Bengal but he did everything he could while the rest of the world stood back and watched. It's puzzling how these charges take root among people who live in freedom today because of efforts by leaders like Churchill and Sir Arthur Harris.

Like gassing the Kurds and Iraqis in 1920? That's how Harris and Churchill maintained their occupation of Iraq.

 

[rupol2000]

Like gassing the Kurds and Iraqis in 1920? That's how Harris and Churchill maintained their occupation of Iraq.

In 1941, together with the Soviet army, they also forcibly occupied Iran, which officially declared neutrality.

 

[surada]

In 1941, together with the Soviet army, they also forcibly occupied Iran, which officially declared neutrality.

The Brits NEVER wanted to pay for taking the natural resources from wogs and coolies.