The British have always believed that in 1940, Germany launched an aerial assault on their country. It is not true. Britain began bombing German cities months before the Battle of Britain or the Blitz
A sobering piece, indeed, Simon! It puts me in mind of James Delingpole's recent confession (or perhaps 'epiphany' is a better word): namely, that almost nothing he has believed about British history during his lifetime is true!
I wouldn't personally 'go down the rabbit-hole' as far as the august Delingpole, but I do find myself beset by a new attitude in these post-Covidocracy days: one of automatic scepticism, whereby I believe nothing I am told by anyone except those I love, or those feel I can trust, usually by virtue of their 'speaking truth to power' as the saying goes. Conversely, of course, this carries with it the danger of unconditionally embracing the 'conspiracy theorist' mindset. Before one knows it one starts thinking the world is flat, etc, etc!
One reservation I have about the general 'drift' of your piece is that its very truth tends further to discredit British people's faith in themselves - just at a time when we barely retain a shred of it anyway! That said, I do believe the truth, though it may be painful, is always salutary in the long run. In this connection, to know ourselves better (through articles such as this) can only redound to our cultural strength and eventual renaissance as a people in the long run.
I didn't mean to attack or damage Britain's faith in itself. I am a great believer in this country and her qualities. Faith founded upon falsehood though, is something I think we might do without!
I know you are, Simon, and I do very much agree. I am also a sincere believer in the old adage ‘the truth never burns you half so hot as when you try to ignore it!’
It's interesting to me that much of the propaganda that came out of the first world war was very quickly discredited after the war yet the same cannot be said for the Second world War. On the contrary, it's become part of the national identities of many European countries.
Thoughtful piece, those of us who are by no means 'experts' but have studied this subject are aware that foreign and Other Ranks pilots did there fair share of battling 'the hun'!
However credit where credit is due, the closing credits of the 'Battle of Britain' film, that most British people will have based their knowledge of the BoB on, will have seen the list if nationalities and KIA of BoB pilots.
It's sobering to recollect their sacrifice, and that they are rightly called 'The Greatest Generation', something that today's politicians are unfit to even 'lick the boots' of even those that mowed the runways let alone the pilots and support crews.
I was fascinated by this article and will read it in more depth when I have time. Ironically, I'm studying a module for my MA degree in Military History at Wolverhampton University looking at Strategic Bombing the Second World War. You are absolutely correct saying that the myth is the Germans started a bombing campaign on us before we did on them. Thank you for your scholarship in setting out the true history. I think a distinction needs to be made in terms of the timing of both sides practicing unrestricted area bombing. The Luftwaffe began this with attacks during the night-time Blitz. The UK began this after the 14th of February 1942. Both in my opinion were wrong and should have followed the American model of daylight 'precision' bombing to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. However, the attack on München Gladbach was a legitimate military raid: the RAF attacked communication routes used by the German Army.
In future, could you add citations to the works you have referenced, please?
Your assumption that the Norden sight was the be all and end of bombing sights is largely based on manufacturers claims bombing targets in the clear blue skies of American deserts.
Coming over to the ETO crews soon found that the weather conditions over Germany were not the same as the training ranges in the US.
They soon resorted to 'bombing' on the lead bombers bomb release... hence aircraft spread over a large formation inevitably resulted in 'area bombing'.
The Americans didn't refer to it as such, but in reality that's all the technology of the day could muster.
Thanks, Richard, for your comment. I agree with you that the American level of precision was far below what the manufacturers of the Norden sight said it was capable given ideal conditions. When the RAF was employed in the daylight Transport Plan running up to D-Day, it was found the RAF out-performed the USAAF in Europe in terms of accurate bombing. Still, neither side was particularly accurate and by the end of the war both the RAF and USAAF engaged in area bombing over Germany - the USAAF euphemistically calling it 'bombing of marshalling yards' to disguise the fact that were bombing urban areas. Collateral damage was only eradicated by the USAF as late as the Gulf War.
This is quite shocking but not that surprising, and reminds me of the power of propaganda, particularly through the retelling (fictionalisation) of history. And so it goes on today, arguably even more blatantly, despite the general public's greater access to facts and truth.
This is another excellent article. "We have, as a nation, come to believe our own invented history, which is a sobering reflection." So true, and so typical of all nations, so far as I can tell.
You are of course right. However, Hitler invaded Poland unprovoked which led to it. I have come to the conclusion that we should have stayed out though.
It was certainly not the British who started the bombing of civilian targets. Guernica 1937, Warsaw 1939, Rotterdam from 10th May 1940 onwards, all suffered massed German aerial attacks inflicting serious civilian casualties. Britain and France would have been justified in waging active war against Germany, by land, sea and air, from September 1939 onwards. The fact that we mainly held back till 1940, giving Germany a free hand in Poland, was a dreadful strategic blunder. However, it did give the Germans more opportunity to demonstrate their approach of bombing the cities of non-aggressive nations.
This is quite fascinating, especially how the Luftwaffe had such disadvantages. I read biographies as a kid, Reach for the skies, Fly for your life, Enemy coast ahead etc, never thought critically about anything. I suppose those books had a lot of correct facts in them, but I don't remember who did what first. What references do you have as regards dates of bombing raids etc? Were there news reports? Or RAF records? Thanks, Bruce.
I am registered on a database which allows me to search British newspapers online, which is handy! I also visit the RAF Museum in London and the National Archives in Kew.
I think you should do a piece on the Milner group, they exemplify the relative ease how just a few dedicated, carefully positioned 'Old Pals' Cabinet members and Civil servants caused the world wars.
The early bombing missions in Germany were problematic due to the innaccuracy of night bombing at that time. Indeed even later in the war when the four engined bombers came into use there was a lot of target creep, I dare say if your enemy is throwing flak at you, the inclination of dropping your bombs as soon as possible is very difficult to control.
The early raids were aimed at strategic targets, shipping, airfields, war industry, oil installations, communications, road, rail and bridges. Bombs falling in cities were seen as collateral damage. Unlike the Luftwaffe who flattened swathes of Polish cities. It was most unfortunate that there were civilian deaths during these raids, but when young men are asked to do incredibly risky tasks with high explosives the odd one is going to go astray.
The unfortunate raid you mentioned to Munchengladbach on the 11th 12th of May was to attack road and rail communications and was the first raid on a German town oddly enough of the 4 people killed one was an Englishwoman. 37 aircraft were involved 3 were lost.
The later 17th 18th May raid on Hamburg was by 48 aircraft and a further 24 to Bremen these were attacking oil refineries, 6 aircraft were sent to Cologne where their targeted railway yards.
I note that there are no mention of civilian deaths when the Germans raided our airfields, aircraft factories and docks before their "accidental bombing of London".
You can find more details of this in "The Bomber Command War Diaries" which is a useful reference for a historian such as yourself.
It is very easy to spin history in any way you wish, but the fact was Britain was at war.
In Hamburg a certain church, the Nikolaikirche, has been left in ruins as a memorial to city's terrible experience in the war. A prominent information board summarises the material demage and loss of life from the Allied bombing. Then it goes on to say in quite simple language that we Germans can't complain because we bombed British cities first.
I found that a remarkable text and so I remembered it. Unfortunately I can't now find the text anywhere on the internet.
As Napoleon said “History is lies agreed upon.”
All too true, I am afraid...
A sobering piece, indeed, Simon! It puts me in mind of James Delingpole's recent confession (or perhaps 'epiphany' is a better word): namely, that almost nothing he has believed about British history during his lifetime is true!
I wouldn't personally 'go down the rabbit-hole' as far as the august Delingpole, but I do find myself beset by a new attitude in these post-Covidocracy days: one of automatic scepticism, whereby I believe nothing I am told by anyone except those I love, or those feel I can trust, usually by virtue of their 'speaking truth to power' as the saying goes. Conversely, of course, this carries with it the danger of unconditionally embracing the 'conspiracy theorist' mindset. Before one knows it one starts thinking the world is flat, etc, etc!
One reservation I have about the general 'drift' of your piece is that its very truth tends further to discredit British people's faith in themselves - just at a time when we barely retain a shred of it anyway! That said, I do believe the truth, though it may be painful, is always salutary in the long run. In this connection, to know ourselves better (through articles such as this) can only redound to our cultural strength and eventual renaissance as a people in the long run.
I didn't mean to attack or damage Britain's faith in itself. I am a great believer in this country and her qualities. Faith founded upon falsehood though, is something I think we might do without!
I know you are, Simon, and I do very much agree. I am also a sincere believer in the old adage ‘the truth never burns you half so hot as when you try to ignore it!’
Very true!
It's interesting to me that much of the propaganda that came out of the first world war was very quickly discredited after the war yet the same cannot be said for the Second world War. On the contrary, it's become part of the national identities of many European countries.
This is very true.
Thoughtful piece, those of us who are by no means 'experts' but have studied this subject are aware that foreign and Other Ranks pilots did there fair share of battling 'the hun'!
However credit where credit is due, the closing credits of the 'Battle of Britain' film, that most British people will have based their knowledge of the BoB on, will have seen the list if nationalities and KIA of BoB pilots.
It's sobering to recollect their sacrifice, and that they are rightly called 'The Greatest Generation', something that today's politicians are unfit to even 'lick the boots' of even those that mowed the runways let alone the pilots and support crews.
I was fascinated by this article and will read it in more depth when I have time. Ironically, I'm studying a module for my MA degree in Military History at Wolverhampton University looking at Strategic Bombing the Second World War. You are absolutely correct saying that the myth is the Germans started a bombing campaign on us before we did on them. Thank you for your scholarship in setting out the true history. I think a distinction needs to be made in terms of the timing of both sides practicing unrestricted area bombing. The Luftwaffe began this with attacks during the night-time Blitz. The UK began this after the 14th of February 1942. Both in my opinion were wrong and should have followed the American model of daylight 'precision' bombing to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. However, the attack on München Gladbach was a legitimate military raid: the RAF attacked communication routes used by the German Army.
In future, could you add citations to the works you have referenced, please?
You are of course quite right to reproach me for my lack of references!
Your assumption that the Norden sight was the be all and end of bombing sights is largely based on manufacturers claims bombing targets in the clear blue skies of American deserts.
Coming over to the ETO crews soon found that the weather conditions over Germany were not the same as the training ranges in the US.
They soon resorted to 'bombing' on the lead bombers bomb release... hence aircraft spread over a large formation inevitably resulted in 'area bombing'.
The Americans didn't refer to it as such, but in reality that's all the technology of the day could muster.
Thanks, Richard, for your comment. I agree with you that the American level of precision was far below what the manufacturers of the Norden sight said it was capable given ideal conditions. When the RAF was employed in the daylight Transport Plan running up to D-Day, it was found the RAF out-performed the USAAF in Europe in terms of accurate bombing. Still, neither side was particularly accurate and by the end of the war both the RAF and USAAF engaged in area bombing over Germany - the USAAF euphemistically calling it 'bombing of marshalling yards' to disguise the fact that were bombing urban areas. Collateral damage was only eradicated by the USAF as late as the Gulf War.
Accuracy of bombing may well have improved, but human errors still mean 'Collateral damage'.
Ask the families of the men killed 'by mistake' when their Warriors Armoured Personnel Carrier was taken out by US aircraft about collateral damage.
War is hell, as the saying goes.
This is quite true.
A saying by someone who's name I don't recall;
"For those who have had to fight for it, life has a certain flavour the sheltered will never know".
Very true!
This is quite shocking but not that surprising, and reminds me of the power of propaganda, particularly through the retelling (fictionalisation) of history. And so it goes on today, arguably even more blatantly, despite the general public's greater access to facts and truth.
I dare say that in fifty years time, people will be shocked and amazed at the things which we believe today to be true!
Indeed Simon
This is another excellent article. "We have, as a nation, come to believe our own invented history, which is a sobering reflection." So true, and so typical of all nations, so far as I can tell.
Yes, I don't say that Britain is alone in its national delusions!
The fact that we may have started the arial bombings is neither here or there to me. They started the war!
I have an idea that it was we who declared war on Germany, rather than the other way round!
You are of course right. However, Hitler invaded Poland unprovoked which led to it. I have come to the conclusion that we should have stayed out though.
Guaranteeing the security of European countries has of course got us into more than one world war!
Was it unprovoked? This is another myth. It's worth looking into what was going on in the ethnically German areas of Poland.
Another forgotten fact about the war.
It was certainly not the British who started the bombing of civilian targets. Guernica 1937, Warsaw 1939, Rotterdam from 10th May 1940 onwards, all suffered massed German aerial attacks inflicting serious civilian casualties. Britain and France would have been justified in waging active war against Germany, by land, sea and air, from September 1939 onwards. The fact that we mainly held back till 1940, giving Germany a free hand in Poland, was a dreadful strategic blunder. However, it did give the Germans more opportunity to demonstrate their approach of bombing the cities of non-aggressive nations.
This is quite fascinating, especially how the Luftwaffe had such disadvantages. I read biographies as a kid, Reach for the skies, Fly for your life, Enemy coast ahead etc, never thought critically about anything. I suppose those books had a lot of correct facts in them, but I don't remember who did what first. What references do you have as regards dates of bombing raids etc? Were there news reports? Or RAF records? Thanks, Bruce.
I am registered on a database which allows me to search British newspapers online, which is handy! I also visit the RAF Museum in London and the National Archives in Kew.
A great account of these fascinating events. Thank you Simon. So much misleading and frankly false history is out there.
Wartime propaganda is understandable but few historians since have strayed from the narrative and really tried to reach the truth.
Maybe the Nuremberg 'show' trials required us to maintain the good verses evil narrative.
One slightly misleading point in your account, I might humbly suggest, is the idea of the Eastern European pilots gallantly coming to defend Britain.
They were certainly gallant but they were obviously motivated by their desire to defeat Germany.
Britain was the only obvious safe haven and the only place from where they could access the hardware to respond.
We benefited hugely from this influx of experienced and motivated pilots.
But this idea that we should be grateful to the Polish pilots for instance for coming to our aid must be kept in context.
We were dragged into the war by Chamberlain's ludicrous blank cheque to Poland.
These contextual points matter I believe.
Thanks for this very clear piece of history! I was one of those who believed the myth.
Glad that you liked it!
Fortunately, after formal "education," one has a lifetime to unlearn ..
Another fascinaing look at our real History.
I think you should do a piece on the Milner group, they exemplify the relative ease how just a few dedicated, carefully positioned 'Old Pals' Cabinet members and Civil servants caused the world wars.
The early bombing missions in Germany were problematic due to the innaccuracy of night bombing at that time. Indeed even later in the war when the four engined bombers came into use there was a lot of target creep, I dare say if your enemy is throwing flak at you, the inclination of dropping your bombs as soon as possible is very difficult to control.
The early raids were aimed at strategic targets, shipping, airfields, war industry, oil installations, communications, road, rail and bridges. Bombs falling in cities were seen as collateral damage. Unlike the Luftwaffe who flattened swathes of Polish cities. It was most unfortunate that there were civilian deaths during these raids, but when young men are asked to do incredibly risky tasks with high explosives the odd one is going to go astray.
The unfortunate raid you mentioned to Munchengladbach on the 11th 12th of May was to attack road and rail communications and was the first raid on a German town oddly enough of the 4 people killed one was an Englishwoman. 37 aircraft were involved 3 were lost.
The later 17th 18th May raid on Hamburg was by 48 aircraft and a further 24 to Bremen these were attacking oil refineries, 6 aircraft were sent to Cologne where their targeted railway yards.
I note that there are no mention of civilian deaths when the Germans raided our airfields, aircraft factories and docks before their "accidental bombing of London".
You can find more details of this in "The Bomber Command War Diaries" which is a useful reference for a historian such as yourself.
It is very easy to spin history in any way you wish, but the fact was Britain was at war.
I was not criticising Britain for bombing Germany! I was rather pointing out that few people were aware of the actual sequence of events.
Interesting article..intersecting author. I learned something today.
I'm glad that you enjoyed it!
In Hamburg a certain church, the Nikolaikirche, has been left in ruins as a memorial to city's terrible experience in the war. A prominent information board summarises the material demage and loss of life from the Allied bombing. Then it goes on to say in quite simple language that we Germans can't complain because we bombed British cities first.
I found that a remarkable text and so I remembered it. Unfortunately I can't now find the text anywhere on the internet.
Make of that what you will.