Talk:Arthur Harris

Controversy

Bombing victims, Berlin, Autumn 1944

I have removed from the lede the section: "The argument Harris continued to adhere to an area bombing strategy due to the inaccuracy of his bomber force, despite the absence of evidence (or even attempts to gather any) of its effectiveness, is based on a misapprehension of the circumstances. He was not dissuaded from it by his seniors, Portal and Churchill, both of whom had access to better intelligence than Harris, nor were there serious misgivings about the campaign expressed by his seniors (or anyone in the Government) at the time."

which strikes me as not the main criticism levelled at Harris. It also fails encyclopaedic style; we should give an account of the controversy, not try to kill it at first mention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article here does not even mention the controversy. A badly lopsided article. More info here

• Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Allegations that it was a war crime
• The Independent (9 November 2006): Anthony Grayling why bomber Harris was wrong in every way
• The Observer (20 August 2006): RAF tribute stirs up 'war crime' storm

and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.205.56 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

re the inclusion of photos regarding on this matter, an edit war is developing with the other editor insisting that the photo at issue is "POV". This argument misuses WP:NPOV because the Wikipedia principle applies to ARTICLES. An edit can, indeed, make an article biased. But note that this is assessed by looking at the WHOLE article after the edit has been made. If photos themselves were POV then neutrality would be a grounds for deletion over at Wikimedia Commons. I've contributed to and been involved with policy discussions over at the Commons for years and I can assure you that the idea that a photograph is inherently non-neutral is not a generally accepted principle. It follows that "that photo is POV" is an invalid argument.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not the photo itself, it's the inclusion. It biases the view against Harris, makes it look as if he personally killed the people in the photo, & AFAICT, adds nothing. They were victims of the policy, not the man, & as such, the pic, if it belongs anywhere (& I'm not convinced), it belongs on the strategic bombing page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The man is controversial because of the consequences of the policy he advocated. If you really believed this argument separating the man from his policies I would think you would be applying it consistently by removing the text that goes to this point as well as the imagery. How can it "add nothing" at the same time that it "biases the view against Harris"? Something that allegedly tips the scales has to have some substance. Your objection thus appears to be that the material at issue makes the case too strongly for Harris' tenure being controversial. Is the most appropriate response to that view to increase the reader's ignorance about why many view Harris' policy critically OR to increase the reader's knowledge about the competing view? It is most respectful of the reader to present both views as persuasively as the inherent merits of both views allow such that the reader then draws his or her own conclusion. Cutting a hole in one side or the other is far less appropriate, I suggest, since it involves Wikipedia editors pre-judging the merits of each case and then letting that view determine how the cases for and against will be presented to the reader. Instead of weakening one perspective, in other words, I suggest strengthening the other. You are going to have an edit war when instead of presenting your own case you rewrite or, in this case, just delete part of the case presented by others.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

♠The man is controversial for endorsing & continuing the policy. He did not carry out the acts himself. The victims are a product of the policy. Put it at strategic bombing, because that's where it belongs.

♠"the material at issue makes the case too strongly" Bull. That picture doesn't "make the case". It isn't even about the case, which is "made" (or not) at strategic bombing. What's at issue on this page is Harris' role in carrying out the policy. That photo adds nothing to understanding his role. Want to make the case for or against strategic bombing & Harris' defense of it? Cite from Terraine's criticism of not doing more minelaying. Or explain why Harris continued to defend throwing his aircrews at targets that got better & better defended as the war went on, & the Germans knew the bombers would come back. We call Haig an idiot for doing it at Verdun; why not Harris?

♠"How can it 'add nothing' at the same time that it 'biases the view against Harris'?" Simple. You want to use the picture to dirty Harris, not to inform. The picture is deliberately evocative, & not directly related to any act Harris carried out on his own. It amounts to calling him a baby killer. Was he on the mission that killed those people? No. Was he on any bombing mission over Berlin in WW2? No. Was he ever on any bombing mission in WW2? No.

♠This picture is being added AFAICT only to bias the reader against Harris. Where are the pictures of bodies on Göring's page? On Spaatz's? On LeMay's? On Himmler's? On Hitler's? Nowhere, & for the same reason. Leave it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Go over to the Vladimir Lenin page and remove the photos of the bodies arguing "Lenin did not carry out these acts himself" and see if the consensus supports your view. You could also go over to the Karl Hermann Frank page and complain that the article portrays the subject as a "baby killer" because of the imagery included. The fact of the matter is that your "nowhere" claim is simply false. "Where" must be and is assessed on an article by article basis. In this case the civilian deaths consequent to Harris' policy is a non-trivial issue with respect to Harris and his legacy. You state here that Harris' policy should be disagreed with on the basis of targets being too strongly defended etc, ie without reference to the issue of civilian casualties. The fact of the matter is that there IS an issue (see the sources another editor called attention to above, and other reliable sources such as The Times which two decades ago identified Harris as a "fanatical believer in the carpet bombing of civilians"). WP:NPOV means a full and frank presentation, not a whitewash. I should think that such a presentation should be possible without the WP:CENSORship you demand. I've already tried to accommodate your concerns with respect to the prominence this is given, but I take it you are unwilling to entertain any compromise. I would invite you to consult Wikipedia:Assume good faith and consider the possibility that I am interested in making Wikipedia more informative and encyclopedic as opposed to "dirty"ing anyone.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

♠If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed a clear & unambiguous distinction between Harris, who followed policy, & Lenin, who made it.

♠"your "nowhere" claim is simply false" Since I never once mentioned Lenin or Frank, it's still true. I also draw a distinction between Lenin, who AFAIK never masterminded gas chambers, & Himmler, who did. Nor, frankly, do I care, since in either case there'd be a good reason to leave in pictures of bodies. Where is the good reason here?

♠You don't want to dirty Harris. So be it. Nevertheless, that's how it looks by your insistence on this photo. Why not one more representative? Hamburg burning? Berlin in ruin? Both of which would be directly related to Harris' actions & would still be in keeping with the criticisms. What is it about dead bodies that makes it so important--except for the emotional impact in criticising Harris' stance? And, I repeat, why here? And why not Spaatz, or LeMay, or Göring?

♠"civilian deaths consequent to Harris' policy" And that is the other reason I think you're out to dirty Harris. It wasn't his policy, it was the policy of the British government. You appear to be trying to make Harris carry the weight. So why not put this on Portal's page? Or Churchill's? Or, as I keep asking & you keep ignoring, strategic bombing, where there is at least a causal connection? Why here?

♠"without reference to the issue of civilian casualties" Without unde weight given civilian casualties, certainly, which this picture also does, by its emphasis on the dead only. (We can argue elsewhere about the supposed innocence of said civilians.) It makes no difference, since, as already said, Harris didn't make the policy. It appears this photo is intended to make out he not only did, but personally carried it out. And you keep throwing up every extraneous argument you can think of, not one really explaining what it is about this picture that makes it so valuable to understanding Harris' actions.

♠"'Where' must be and is assessed on an article by article basis" So it is. And you have to justify inclusion. Claiming censorship is nonsense. You want it in, justify it. Your wanting it that way doesn't get it. And I don't need a reason to delete it. Adding an evocative picture simply because "we can" isn't NPOV, contrary to what you may think: it's biasing the reader against Harris, & that makes it a POV add. Get over it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contention that Harris was just following orders is not supported by the sources. Were it true that Harris had no more responsibility than the airmen who opened the bomb doors, Harris would not be a controversial figure. re the question I "keep ignoring", at issue here is not your deletion of material at another article but at this article. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Why not imagery of Hamburg burning? I have no objection to this, but note that it's primarily the civilian deaths and injuries that makes Harris controversial, not the property damage. Amongst the sources that have as their central topic the moral opposition to Harris, show me the ones that focus on the latter instead of the former if that's what you believe is most controversial. In any case, you don't seem keen to acknowledge any controversy at all; you have not attempted to exchange this photo with another one more satisfactory to you. You DO need to provide a reason why the argument for inclusion is invalid once an argument has been advanced. If this were not the case please cite where in Wikipedia policy it says deletionists are not under an obligation to engage on the Talk page. Finally, note that in this Talk section three persons have voiced concern over the minimization of Harris' responsibility for the civilian consequences and only one, you, feels that there is not a POV problem here in need of correction. I'm tagging the article as non-neutral unless and until this consensus opinion should change. Not "biasing the reader" means respecting the reader's capacity to draw appropriate conclusions following a full and frank presentation of alternative perspectives, not whiting out what you consider too much for the reader's tender sensibilities. Andrew Roberts (historian) defends the morality of Harris' bombing in his 2009 book The Storm of War AND he includes this photo. If he can do it why can't you?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

♠"argument for inclusion is invalid once an argument has been advanced" So where is it?

♠Andrew Roberts? I'm happy for him. He's not WP, nor is he this page. You have yet to offer a reason this page should include it. One appearance in one source is not a reason.

♠"Your contention that Harris was just following orders is not supported by the sources." Your contention Harris was making the policy certainly isn't. Care to offer a source showing Harris was in the meetings with Churchill & Lindemann where the dehousing policy was decided? Harris was unquestionably a fervent advocate for strategic bombing. That's a very different thing from being an architect of the policy. I can't help it you seem not to know the difference.

♠"at issue here is not your deletion of material at another article" At issue here is your inclusion of a photo. Which you continue to refuse to offer any rationale for including, beyond your criticism of Harris, which is a separate issue. Show me how that photo adds to my understanding of his actions. Show me how it does anything besides make him out a butcher. You continue to refuse.

♠"sources that have as their central topic the moral opposition to Harris" Their central topic? Not any that criticise Harris' actions, but only ones about "moral opposition"? So Terraine's criticism is invalid because it's not "moral opposition" & not a "central topic"? How about Ethics & Airpower"? It's not strictly about Harris. Does it not count, either?

♠"you have not attempted to exchange this photo with another one more satisfactory to you" Because I feel no particular need for photos of dead civilians. I disagree the civilian deaths were unjustified, & I find the discussion of the issue as presented suffices.

♠"respecting the reader's capacity to draw appropriate conclusions following a full and frank presentation" It also means not weighting the scales in how it's presented, & that's everything from choice of words to choice of images.

♠"tagging the article as non-neutral" Ridiculous. Just because you can't get one lousy photo in? Read the actual content of the page, why don't you?

♠"minimization of Harris' responsibility" For the execution, no. I do disagree on his responsibility for the creation of the policy, as noted. Harris didn't decide it. If you think he did, show me the source saying he was in the policy meetings. And I disagree on the alleged immorality of it. That is a debate for another page, because that is about the policy, not Harris. As for Roberts, it appears I'd agree with him. As said, that's a debate for another page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

why are there pictures of jews on heinrich himmler's page then, if we are to follow your line of reasoning? 2601:281:8000:8C7:B1F8:9169:C286:CE4F (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if such photo was appropriate, the date that this particular photo was taken 23 September 1944, indicates that the victims were not casualties of the RAF (See RSF Campaign Diary September 1944 -- the RAF heavies of Bomber Command was still bombing France in support of the Normandy lodgement).

I think that this debate is sterile. Bomber Harris did not decide policy, but he chose to interpret policy in such a way to favour area bombing. Post the D-Day break, he could have chosen to put more emphasis on the part of the policy that emphasised precision bombing. I find it amassing that he was not informed of the ULTRA secret, and I think an PhD exists in detailing exactly why he was not included. Without the information and the source it came from, he could not make the informed decisions that being a party to ULTRA would have allowed.

It is well known that Churchill distanced himself from the policy of area bombing as detailed in the bombing of Dresden: British wartime response article. One of the interesting points to note is the famous first telegram was one that, if not found in the archives by David Irving, was emphasised in Irving's book The Destruction of Dresden -- as was Operation Thunderclap (another piece of Irving's disinformation that still surfaces from time to time).

Given that Churchill and others distanced themselves, then Harris, the public face of Bomber Command for most of the war, ended up with the buck. To argue that he was responsible for the policy is simplistic, while to argue he was free of all responsibility as his apologists do is equally disingenuous.

The thoughts of Donald Bloxham, one of the historians who has pondered on this, is detailed in "bombing of Dresden: war crime", Bloxham considers Churchill to be the man where the buck should stop, so if the image that starts this belongs in any biography it should be placed in the Churchill biography! I can't see that there would be general consensus for this.

As there has been no more debate about this issue here since February, I am removing the POV template at the top of the article. There is no reason why the subject can not be debated further, but until there are concrete suggestions with sources on how we could improve this article there is no need for a POV template at the top of the article.-- PBS (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Harris had little to do with official policy as he wasn't a politician, policy was decided upon by the War Cabinet, of which Churchill as Minister of Defence was head. The War Cabinet looked for advice from IIRC the CIGS, the First Sea Lord, and the Chief of the Air Staff which IIRC was Portal. This was the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Harris' main contribution would have been to inform the Cabinet what his force was capable of, and what it was not.

Any 'advocating' of the Area Bombing policy by him is likely to have been due to his recognition that at night the majority of RAF BC was capable of little else. If ordered to implement a policy that was not in his opinion practicable, it was his job to point out this and to provide suggestions on what he considered was practicable. This he did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

" I find it amassing that he was not informed of the ULTRA secret, and I think an PhD exists in detailing exactly why he was not included. Without the information and the source it came from, he could not make the informed decisions that being a party to ULTRA would have allowed." - Harris was not notified of Ultra because he was not one of the two designated UK air commanders to be so-informed. IIRC, Portal was one and I suspect the other was Bufton, but Harris was not informed, as there were only allowed to be two notified persons. The number of nominated Allied persons to be so-informed of Ultra IIRC had been agreed earlier with the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington. The Allied land commanders so-informed were IIRC, Alan Brooke and Montgomery, together with Marshall and Eisenhower on the US side. I'm not sure of the designated US air commanders, but I suspect it was Doolittle and later Spaatz but I might be wrong, as Marshall was already head of the USAAC/USAAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Cherwell

The article goes, 'In 1942, Professor Frederick Lindemann (later ennobled as Lord Cherwell)...' No, Lindemann had already been ennobled a year before. And the rest of the article's no better. It still makes the false claim that Harris was ordered to stop bombing oil targets in November 1944. In reality, 'From 6 per cent of its bombing total on oil in October, Bomber Command increased the total to 24 per cent the following month.' (Overy, The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945, p.385.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Harris had a pre-existing Directive and orders direct from the War Cabinet and the Chief of the Air Staff to carry out the Area Bombing offensive and any new requests that contradicted such orders required specific new orders to be given him whether he approved of the new requests or not.

Hence any talk about him being 'unwilling' to do this, and 'having to be 'ordered' to do that, usually fails to take into account this rather simple (and what ought to be fairly obvious) fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. The Area Bombing Directive remained in force until suspended by the War Cabinet in April 1945, so Harris had to carry it out. From autumn 1944 he was also directed by the Air Staff to attack oil and 'transportation' (railway) targets, and any other targets that the Air Staff might care to order, and that's what he did. When 3 Group belatedly converted from Stirlings to Lancasters in autumn 1944 he had one bomber in three fitted with G-H for radar-ranging precision blind bombing, each G-H aircraft painted with twin gold bars on the tail fins for recognition, so that two other bombers could formate on the G-H leader and bomb when the leader bombed. This made 3 Group quite largely into a specialist daylight fighter-escorted all-weather oil-bombing force, though they did other things as well and other groups took part in day and night oil-bombing (to which Bomber Command contributed a greater tonnage, more accurately, than US Eighth Air Force).

Harris did that. The fact that he took out bureaucratic insurance against failure, by writing his notorious letters to Portal in which he made clear his scepticism about betting so much on oil, does not alter the fact that he carried out an extremely effective 'precision' oil-bombing campaign, as he was ordered to do. He also carried out an extremely effective 'precision' campaign against rail targets. As for area bombing, the US Eighth Air Force carried out two massive 'precision' raids against their own US-owned Ford-Werke in Cologne in autumn 1944 and neither of them hit the target apart from one bomb on one office building. They didn't try again because they received intelligence (via a laid-off former slave worker who had returned to his home country) that Ford-Werke had pretty much been put out of business anyway by British area bombing of Cologne and other cities, which disrupted power, light, water, telephones, rail, public transport and workers' housing to the point that the factory did not have the supplies, amenities or labour to continue functioning, even though the factory itself was barely damaged -- which was the aim of area bombing, and an aim successfully achieved. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

area/strategic bombing

The 'dehousing' or 'strategic' bombing policy was first suggested by Frederik Lindemann in a paper presented to Churchil in February 1942. German born, he was the chief scientific adviser to Churchill. He believed in eugenics and seems to have conceived a violent hatred of Germans. He also did not believe in the V2 bombs.Pamour (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

" ... conceived a violent hatred of Germans. " - perhaps that was because the Luftwaffe had been coming over and dropping bombs on his country.

And not really about Harris. Besides which, it's the product of Bomber Command's inability to hit anything smaller than a city. That it was misguided in its fundamental thrust (civilian morale) is another matter. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The objective of undermining civilian morale was with hindsight misguided, although much was known of conditions within the occupied territories, due to SOE, etc., very little was known at the time of conditions within Germany, and it was hoped the German people would eventually rise up and overthrow Hitler and his regime and under a new government arrange a peace deal. This was before Roosevelt unilaterally announced a demand for unconditional German surrender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A move to Bomber Harris can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet → Arthur Harris
• Arthur Harris → Arthur Harris (disambiguation)

– For starters, since when do we ignore WP:CONCISENESS to tack on a bunch of la-di-da awards? A baronet is not even a peer, and you can't swing a dead cat in England without hitting a Sir. Might as well tack on OBE etc to the title if we're going to do this. This title is a dead letter I would say.

My proposal is to move all the other Arthur Harrises to "Arthur Harris (disambiguation)", on grounds that this guy is easily the main topic (I would guess), even against all the other people of that name, who are obscure -- I'm confident that is true, that like 90% of people are wanting to read about this Arthur Harris, and this will be even more true 100 years from now. However, if you want to keep "Arthur Harris" as a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, we could go with "Arthur Harris (air marshal)" or maybe "Arthur 'Bomber' Harris". Possibly "Arthur T. Harris" or just "Bomber Harris", altho those not as good IMO. Or something. Herostratus (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, such as Arthur Harris, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Arthur Harris → Arthur Harris (disambiguation)" was added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:PTOPIC. None of the other candidates seem close. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Arthur_Harris shows that there were 151 incoming views, and 102 views of the proposed primary topic (~68%), and 16 views of High Sheriff of Essex, while the other topics didn't get enough traffic to go into the anonymous clickstream data (<10 views from any pair of source-destination). This is typically seen as borderline primary topic by usage, because there's already ~32% of readers who didn't navigate to the proposed primary topic. The list currently doesn't sort this very popular topic at the top, so it's plausible that some of the ~32% couldn't actually find this one - I'd start with changing that first. Later, if we verify that the navigation outcomes consistently change so it becomes clear that people overwhelmingly want to see that article, then do that move. --Joy (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Support per Nom BoonDock (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative Bomber Harris or Arthur "Bomber" Harris as the common name -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  The article says that's the common name, and Bomber Harris has redirected here since 2003 (the other one since 2006), so this does make sense. --Joy (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DDSM

The author cites ACM Harris as receiving the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (DDSM) which did not exist until 1970. Perhaps it should have been the Army DSM, instituted in 1918. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Service_Medal_(U.S._Army) 2600:2B00:821A:C000:917B:9320:B37B:3618 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

'Precision strikes'

The article has this:- 'Harris was very encouraging of innovation but he resisted the creation of the Pathfinder Force and the development of precision strikes which had proven so effective in the Dambusters' raid.' And it isn't true. Harris certainly opposed the foundation of Pathfinder Force (because it wasn't his idea, and he would have preferred each existing Group to have its own specialist crews), but after the Dams Raid he kept 5 Group's No.617 Squadron (his own creation) in being for further special tasks and encouraged their development of low-level target marking and precision bombing, with consequences for a number of high-value targets including V-weapon sites and the Tirpitz. He also developed 3 Group, once it re-equipped from Stirlings to Lancasters in autumn 1944, as a specialist all-weather oil-bombing force with G-H radar-ranging (a version of Oboe that could be used by a large number of aircraft at once, the repeater set being in the aircraft and not at the ground station), despite his well-known and ultimately mistaken reservations about the oil campaign. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)