What a great man Arthur was. Shame people like that aren't around anymore.

@SworBeyE16

4 ай бұрын

What makes him so great? He pursued a strategy of deliberately killing civilians (mainly women and children) for absolutely minimal military gain. He did so at massive expense of aircrew and aircraft which were frankly wasted for the sake of his own ego and spite

This is invaluable for the historic record. Hearing it from Harris, in his own words, is worth its weight in gold.

@dangibbs5390

3 жыл бұрын

It's almost like Hitler or Saddam confessing their crimes. Thing is, this price of human shite never admitted his crimes, I'd say he was in the top 5 worst men of the 20th century. We will never forget, no matter the propaganda.... 😉😉

@anthonywilson4873

3 жыл бұрын

@@dangibbs5390 sounds like you have a fixed opinion. Did you listen with an open mind. If you did you will have heard him state those above specifically asked for him to destroy German cities probably Churchill, he did that as WW2 finished everybody in power distanced themselves from him. The only way for bombers to get through at that time was at night, he knew that otherwise they got shot down easily and that proved to be the case. Early War they had to hit coastal targets as they could be found, as technology developed they started to be able to target better and hit more precise targets. As he said daylight bombing to be accurate had to be able to see the target and cloud would obscure the target. War is terrible, Germany destroyed Cities first from the air look at Spain Guernica at Coventry as a UK example. His team was our front line playing the worst game you can play War, I lost an Uncle as a rear gunner on a Lanc. You where not there, you did not have to play this game. The UK was forced to play this game because of Nazi’s. Because of the Likes of bomber Harris and others like him the Allies won the Second World War. The A bomb saved every allied prisoner of war in Japan they where all going to be bayoneted to death to save bullets as soon as soon as Japan was invaded they also saved Millions of Allies soldiers lives and Japanese civilian lives as every town would have been a battle zone. It also stopped Stalin in Germany. He had the best tanks huge amounts of artillery, a massive well equipped airforce Millions of men and women equipped with automatic weapons and was ruthless. You need to do a lot more research. Yes tens of thousands died in cities huge amounts of innocents died all over the Globe. It’s war!. He did his job very well and his job was to go bomb everything, he was directed to by the top brass. He did not sit there and think I will go for the Cities on his own, think about it? No one especially in a war time situation has that amount of power on their own. Once the war was over he was the fall guy for Civilians killed in German Cities. Cleans up others memoirs and Historical legacy. He had a job to do and he did it well. How would you have done it?

@dangibbs5390

3 жыл бұрын

@@anthonywilson4873 bit of a wall of text there! I know most of that already, no need to do any additional research thanks. How would I have done it? Focused my resources mainly on front lines, then second to that doubled up on daylight raids alongside the US bombers. What I would NOT have done is firebombed medieval city centers full of woman, children the elderly and hundreds of years of European history and culture into oblivion.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

2 жыл бұрын

@@dangibbs5390 "medieval city centers full of woman, children the elderly and hundreds of years of European history and culture".... You mean cities like Warsaw, Lublin, Weidlun, Rotterdam, Coventry, Bradford, Exeter & Portsmouth to name just some, ALL of which fit the above description and all of which were bombed by the nazis before a single bomb landed on a German city.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness... What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime. With Dresden and other *over the top* excesses, they destroyed the balance. *Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.* After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world. After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC. Down they went. Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...

This is a stunning, revelatory document - no exaggeration! After reading and listening to so many other accounts of Harris and Bomber Command, we finally get a candid account of his own. Of course I should have read his book, "Bomber Offensive". But this alone must surely set some of the record more straight than some other commentary.

@JamesRichards-mj9kw

6 ай бұрын

It's worthless as the war criminal kept quoting the notorious liar Speer.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

5 ай бұрын

@@JamesRichards-mj9kw "The notorious liar"? He's one of YOUR nazi heroes !!!

@markstott6689

Ай бұрын

​@@JamesRichards-mj9kwYour comment is worthless. He helped win the war and stop a murderous regime who indulged in genocide. That has far greater importance than your cheap shots.

@DC.409

Ай бұрын

Look into the official history it is now published by N&M 4 books, but wait until they have a sale on.

Possibly one of the best and informative interviews and great to hear how things actually were from the man in charge. A great idea to capture this information in a interview. Thank you for sharing and making public

Very skilful interviewer, who was able to tease out all sorts of details from Harris, some very controversial. In fact I would go as far as to say this is a masterclass in interviewing techniques.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

He asked the wrong questions altogether... The winners/losers of wars are not "decided on the battlefields", and that includes cities as "slaughterhouses". *The "winners/losers" are decided by boring men in suites, in boring black suites, in boring back rooms, making "deals".* Nothing to with "sending brrrrrrrr-Lancs around", or tanks and battleships with big guns going "boom boom".... ROTFL. Gamerboy logic for the meek... You end up after a "won war" with *no leverage?* You lose.

@SuperNevile

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 OK. So it took three superpowers (British Empire, United States and Russia) to get Germany to "backdown"..... does that sound better?

A great man who understood that war was awful, but had to be won ay any costs if needs be without rules or self-doubt.

@tgptolemy20

2 жыл бұрын

Britain helped defeat Germany , well good, but then they turned around and gave all of Eastern Europe to Stalin and the Communist, which doesn't make a lot of sense.....Eastern Europe just went from one blood thirsty dictator to the next. The upside of it all is Britain lost its empire..

@wattage2007

2 жыл бұрын

@@tgptolemy20 That’s politicians for you though. A spectacular win squandered by political wrangling.

@wolfgangkramm4694

2 жыл бұрын

Bomber Harris was a war criminal

@wolfgangkramm4694

2 жыл бұрын

@@tgptolemy20 Bomber Harris was a war criminal

@wattage2007

2 жыл бұрын

@@wolfgangkramm4694 A war hero. You’re still a sore loser 80 years later 🤣

Met "" The old man"" several times a very dry sense of humour and had incredible presence as you see here great leader

Never seen this before. A real gem of an interview with Sir Arthur. May he and his brave lads of Bomber Command R. I. P

@helvisea

Жыл бұрын

I wish they go to hell, if they are not there already. (And I am not German.)

@ashleighsr-z9159

Жыл бұрын

🙏

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

They were terrorists, like ISIS.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He’s in hell

@alanadair4893

7 ай бұрын

@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098well he’s going to have kicked hell out of Hitler if that was where he went, Adolfo boys didn’t have any regard when they bombed my dad in Glasgow 41 or 42😢he was lucky,so that was before Harris 🤔🤔🫢so he didn’t start nothing 🫢

Great man and a very very good interview

An absolute legend of a man……. But I can’t be the only person that thinks that he and the actor, Arthur Lowe have an uncannily similar appearance and mannerisms…… 🤔🤔

Appears a dour character, unmoved by monumental decisions, but highly supportive of his men, and generous in praising his direct reports.

@SworBeyE16

4 ай бұрын

He demonstrated the same indifference to the deliberate killing of civilians for minimal military gain and at massive cost of aircrew. In fact he actively resented being told to bomb strategically relevant targets like oil refineries.

@markstott6689

Ай бұрын

​@@SworBeyE16In war you do whatever wins the war. As the civilian population supported the Nazis and were very unlikely to turn against them, they were targeted. I don't give a monkeys how Harris went about it. Destroying Germany and the Nazis was the only way to end the war and the holocaust. Realpolitik is real. Having nice polite rules on how wars are fought go out of the window when reality bites.

@mookie2637

Ай бұрын

I'm really not sure he was "highly supportive". He appears to have been a very difficult man who resented any challenge - either from above or below. In this, he's not dissimilar to LeMay.

@SworBeyE16

Ай бұрын

@@mookie2637 And simultaneously he showed bitter resentment to being told he was wrong or to change tactics, even if it were only temporary.

Excellent presentation. I appreciate this, having heard and read a lot about Harris but have never heard the man speak at length about his own experiences.

@tonynoblett4663

3 жыл бұрын

He really got bad press afterwards, but I remember that in the war when we heard on the radio what are bomber command was doing,we felt great. We owe all the boys,and commander’s all our gratitude.Thankyou for showing us.

What an outstanding leader. This is the first time I have ever heard the reasoning for the Dresden bombing fully explained.

A great man bar none - and one who owes an explanation to no-one!

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists). The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Lesson learnt? Nope.

@basedglennuk

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 Potential allies? A people indoctrinated with Nazism - who adored Hitler and littered bomb-sites with his fascist flag in defiance. A people who sang anti-British songs, who would have enslaved Britain and her people had it not have been for the Channel - some potential allies! Sir Arthur Harris - and Brits like him - put the Great in Great Britain. They weren't appeasers or blighted by LMF - they were fighters who stepped-up and overcame a fearsome and determined enemy!

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@@basedglennuk Most Germans were not Nazis. A majority never voted for nazis.

@basedglennuk

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 Yet Nazism still prevailed - as it would have done in Britain without Sir Arthur Harris and steely-veined folk like him's selflessness. People like you, Ralph, tried making deals at the time, and with a man who reneged on deals for fun. People as foolish now, as they were back then 🙄

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@@basedglennuk Your leaders were the ones making the "deals with time", hoping that the "croc they were feeding and feeding and feeding and feeding" wouldn't "eat them last". Poor losers got stuck with a Cold War, and more trillions wasted, and more body bags. Sad if one has leaders who "only follow orders" and who succumb to the very "logic" they superficially claim to oppose ;-)

Interview is absolutely fascinating and pure gold. Kudos to the interviewer for showing "Bomber" the respect he so richly deserved.

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

He was a terrorist.

@SworBeyE16

4 ай бұрын

Why did he deserve respect for pursuing a strategy of deliberately killing civilians in return for minimal military gain and massive losses of aircrew?

@markstott6689

Ай бұрын

​@@SworBeyE16Your view is tosh. It was a war that had to be won. He went about it the best way that he could. Realistically precision bombing isn't always accurate, even today. Mistakes can happen with today's tech. Technology 42-45 wasn't great so they destroyed everything. I'd do the same today to keep our country safe. Moral handwringing 80 years later is the privilege that Bomber Command earned for you. Don't despoil it.

@SworBeyE16

Ай бұрын

@@markstott6689 Well done on your thorough analysis. I'm sure you'll be awarded a PhD for the spectacular review of my argument. You completely ignore the fact that Harris chose area bombing and "de-housing" over tactical targets like oil refineries and factories, which could be and were targeted with "42-45" technology as demonstrated by the USAAF and by small elements of Bomber command such as the Mosquito force. Harris was fully aware of the lunacy and extraordinary cost of his decisions, yet through a combination of arrogance, ego and spite, he chose to continue wasting thousands of aircrew for the sake of killing civilians. Could you please explain the firebombing of Lubeck, for example?

My dad was one of Harris's bomber boys and proud of it.

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

Your father was a terrorist.

@drcuehidaisu7357

Жыл бұрын

He is proud of killing innocent people, damn you

@alanadair4893

7 ай бұрын

@@drcuehidaisu7357dam you. Hitlers army bombed my dad in Glasgow. What was your solution 🤔

@markstott6689

Ай бұрын

​@@drcuehidaisu7357Go back to your cave like a good little troll.

@alanjm1234

13 күн бұрын

​@@drcuehidaisu7357 there were no innocent Germans. They all knew what was being done in the concentration camps.

Bomber Harris was a remarkable man they didn't call him butch for nothing . My grandfather flew operationally before , during and after WW2 he flew under Bomber Harris and respected him as a friend and a commander when Harris took over Bonner command in 1942 the command was at a low ebb Harris boosted it he is what I call a true Brit .

@britishpatriot812

3 жыл бұрын

@James Henderson And you sir, are not fit to lick the soles of his boots clean.

@islandblind

3 жыл бұрын

If you speak ill of Sir Arthur Harris at a Bomber Command reunion, you do so at your peril.

@zavaraninoveuhorky

3 жыл бұрын

DO IT AGAIN

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Harris was a war criminal and murderer who committed genocide against German people. He is also a traitor for Britain by helping the Soviets and letting the war destroy Britain

@alanadair4893

7 ай бұрын

@@islandblindsays who ,certainly not Cheshire VC

This is just a fantastic interview. Really a gem that should be heard by anyone remotely interested in a realistic picture of the trials and tribulations of WW2.

Such an absolute gold mine to have interviews like this as a record. In my personal belief 'Bomber' Harries was the 'right' man for the 'right' time, much as Churchill was in his role.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

Like R.E.H. Dyer, the "hero" of the Amritsar Massacre, Harris was a grave digger of the British Empire. Dyer "only" ordered to open fire on a few 1,000 victims. Harris ordered to "open fire" on hundreds of thousands. Dyer was given a hero's welcome when he returned, and was showered with "crowd funded" Pounds of admiration, by a horde of Empire apologists...

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 Pity it wasn't millions Ralph.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 "Pity" your empire didn't kill millions of Indians more?

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal

@markstott6689

Ай бұрын

​@@ralphbernhard1757Oh give it a rest. People like you who live for public moral handwringing are a burden. One I have no wish to hear. Thank you.

Thank you very much for uploading the full interview.

@royalairforce

6 жыл бұрын

No problem Thomas. If you look on our RAF CAPS playlist on our channel you can watch more interviews like this. We have many more to come! :)

@thomasozel4889

6 жыл бұрын

Wonderful! Thank you.

Incredible insights into the inner workings of bomber command. This interview is remarkable. Thank you.

@wolfgangkramm4694

2 жыл бұрын

Bomber Harris was a war criminal

@jpeterrich

2 жыл бұрын

@@wolfgangkramm4694 No, the true war criminals were the governments of Germany and Japan. As he said, Germany sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind…

Bravo and very well done for publishing this interview. A fascinating and informative piece of history from the mouth of man himself no less; it doesn't get any better than that.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal

A mature, sensible discussion. Thank you. One interesting point, he made no comment about Tedder. Given his clear respect for Montgomery and given Tedder's disrespectful attitude towards Montgomery, I would be interested to know what Harris' views were.

Superb and important interview.

I am a fangirl of Bomber... I wish I could have told him so. Whatever his faults, he was a committed bulldog. 100% in and committed - but I have to say, there is a real joy in looking at him and thinking he looks like a senior brother, in looks and voice, of Captain Manwaring, in Dad's Army. I know it would probably have made him apoplectic, but if he could have somehow been convinced to shout, "Don't tell them your name, Pike!" I may well have died then, of joy.

@SworBeyE16

4 ай бұрын

So do you honestly think his strategy of deliberately killing civilians (mainly women and children) for minimal military gain, at the cost of thousands of aircrew, makes his worthy of praise?

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

3 ай бұрын

@@SworBeyE16 Albert Speer, the nazi reichsminister for armaments from Feb 1942 onwards, said of the allied bombing of Germany "The allied bombing of Germany and the required defence of the German Reich reduced the German army's anti tank capability by 50%, and forced us to withhold more than one million men from the front line units. The effect of the allies strategic bombing has always been underestimated. It was in fact the biggest lost battle of the whole war for Germany, greater than the losses from all our retreats in Russia and the surrender of the German army at Stalingrad".

@SworBeyE16

3 ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Its a fundamentally silly argument to justify deliberate targeting of civilians here. It was the necessity to protect vital infrastructure, not the cities themselves, which drew away German resources. Look at the defences of the Ploesti oil fields, for example. In May 1944 after the initial Eighth Air Force raid on Germany's synthetic oil plant, Albert Speer recalled telling Adolf Hitler that “the enemy has struck us at one of our weakest points. If they persist at it this time, we will soon no longer have any fuel production worth mentioning. If Harris had dropped his ego and obsessive lust for killing civilians, and instead diverted his resources to attacking strategically relevant targets, the same effect of diverting German troops would have occurred but the effect on Germany's ability to construct and fuel equipment would have been many times greater.

A Brilliant interview by both parties that stimulates. many thoughts on the horrors, heroism and teamwork in WWII. Thank you very much for showing

One of my heroes from the past! A great man who helped save the modern world! A great series to watch is Bomber Harris staring John Thaw! A superb series and explains a lot about this interview.

Had no inkling this channel existed. Thank you for preserving these interviews and posting.

Again I say, I hugely appreciate this channel to which I am now a devoted subscriber . It is an enormous privilege to be able to hear these great men , all of who and whom did and gave so much. Thank you .

My Dad was not a big fan of this man. He was a tail gunner in Lancaster’s. He felt especially towards the end of the war his group was being used more and more as bait. Still, a great interview for the historical record.

@stevesandford1437

2 жыл бұрын

Hello. (I'd like to hear more about your Dad's opinion if you could possibly expand?) Although widely known as Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, it's reported that his crews nick-named him 'Butcher' Harris... (This could be in reference to his policy of bombing cities and towns, but also may have referenced the appalling casualties the crews suffered?) RAF Bomber Command had an attrition rate only comparable to German U-Boat personnel. While debate still rages about the 'morality' of area-bombing civilian cities, the courage of men like your father cannot be questioned. (An estimated 50% of Bomber Command aircrew died on operations, not including those lost in training accidents or those captured or injured on 'ops'.) No other Allied branch-of-service suffered this ratio of risk. The fact that air-crew were fully aware of the high-risk nature of their duties and still went out night after night on 'ops' speaks volumes as to their courage. (It's also a consideration that Bomber Command air-crew had experienced 'The Blitz' and were fully cognisant that they WERE killing enemy civilians in the thousands. One can only speculate as to how they balanced this within their own moral/religious compass? Their 'stress' must have been unimaginable for those living today. Of course, in those days, it was impossible to share such concerns, indeed to even attempt to question the policy was seen as 'defeatist' or even cowardly.) In MY OPINION, the strategy of Bomber Command was justified, if only to defeat a greater evil and prevent a much greater loss of life, including civilian lives. xx SF .

@bfhfhfhdj

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevesandford1437 Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. So I will return the complement. Answering your question is not as easy as it may seem. War tends to polarize people between ‘right and wrong, the ‘good and the bad’. My Old man was totally convinced he ‘did the right thing’ to help stop the war, but at the same time he was deeply troubled by his actions. After the war he lived in a era that wanted to forget but at the same time full of Hollywood movies glorifying the winners (which he hated with a passion), In his experience there was no glory, after a mission, beds were left empty, bags were used to collect the body parts from the fuselage off crew who ‘didn’t make it’. There was even a threatened Mutiny in 1944 by the crews of bomber command. Unfortunately my dad passed away before being able to see this documentary Part 1 nad 2 kzread.info/dash/bejne/gYGIp69-cpOvfZs.html I am sure it would have helped him feel less repentant, Germany (at that time )and their people were ‘convinced of’ and committed to their goal. The image and history presented to us today has been rehabilitated and cleaned to make it look like they were just ‘following orders’, but this we now know was untrue. Its a pity my Old man didn’t get to see that documentary, he might have been able to come to terms with what he had to do. He always knew that what he did was terrible,,, but,,,, it was necessary to stop a great Evil..

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Harris was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people. He should have been convicted of war crimes if the Germans won

@georgielancaster1356

8 ай бұрын

​@@stevesandford1437Have you watched Don Bennett's interview? His battle to get PATHFINDERS approved by Bomber was Herculean. In all these interviews, I think as old men, their memories are reinterpreted.

God bless his soul.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Ah, the "area bombing"-fanboys...lol. The term "naive old buffer" comes to mind. How could they be so wrong? Didn't they know that for any US President, the US would always come first? Didn't they know or even instinctively feel that most of the US elites were just waiting for the British Empire to crumble? *So let's become "best fwiends" with a faraway "empire", the American Century.* And don't even get me started on that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" claptrap. When in history has that ever worked out? Never has and never will, especially where ideological enemies are concerned. *Because Stalin too, was just waiting for the old European Empires to crumble.* So let's make Stalin a friend too. Two "friends", just waiting for you to crumble and fail. "England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests." (Lord Palmerston) *Why should it be different for anybody else?*

@mrjones1696

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ralphbernhard1757 Be so wrong about what? Are you an Englishman? I am struggling to understand what you want from me.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrjones1696 "So wrong" thinking that "speaking English" was a guarantee for fair play, and that informal agreements would save their British Empire... EPISODE 1: "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World *for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea* and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" :-D What could possibly go wrong? EPISODE 2: "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

@@mrjones1696 (Footnote: see above re. the topic "nukes" to protect the British Empire after WW2) The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945. Because its the *American Century* for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world *really* works... Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, *but also rivals.* Each wanting to be on top once the war was over... *At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...* But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations. Strange... Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world *"you shall not have nuclear weapons!"* [Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program] Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which *was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...* Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was *"no, it's mine".* 1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?" That's how leverage works. Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century. Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.

@mrjones1696

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ralphbernhard1757 I will read your comments and give a fair and honest answer to your query but first you must show honour by answering my plain question. Are you an Englishman? If not, where do you come from?

Sir Arthur Harris, known as "Bomber Harris"! He did what was necessary, to help eradicate an Evil Regime. ❤❤❤❤ Roland Singh, Canada 🇨🇦

@man-likemountain2480

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely right

@barr474

2 жыл бұрын

Anyone who thinks that the bomber offensive was ineffective are deluded in the extreme. This man and the 55000 aircrew who lost their lives helped end ww2

@robertmccardle5113

2 жыл бұрын

His men called him Butcher Harris. It was totally in resect. My father had the greatest respect for him.

@wolfgangkramm4694

2 жыл бұрын

Bomber Harris was a (SIR) war criminal

@wolfgangkramm4694

2 жыл бұрын

Bomber Harris was a (SIR) war criminal

Arthur Harris has my full respect as a officer and a gentleman and I really do think he did a fantastic job one thing my late grandfather always said they didn't call him butch or bomber Harris for nothing .

@tonycoxall7370

3 жыл бұрын

@James Henderson That is hindsight mixed with opinion. No one could have foreseen in the middle of the twentieth century how things would develop decades later.

@tonycoxall7370

3 жыл бұрын

@James Henderson Is that in fact what happened? Your knowledge of these things may be greater than mine. I did start to read a book a few years ago about Winston Churchill supporting an armed struggle by the Tzarist factions in Russia against the Communist dictatorship which had just been established at the end of world war 1. For whatever reason I never really got into the book but I believe military aid was sent by Britian to assisted the anti - Bolshevik forces but Churchill did not have enough backing but so the project failed. It does seem to me that the attitude of the British Government toward the USSR very much fluctuated from to time until the end of the second world war and the ' Cold War ' began.

@anthonywilson4873

3 жыл бұрын

@@tonycoxall7370 I think the Cold War had to do more with Stalin than Churchill. Stalin had a pact with the Nazis and when Hitler ordered the invasion of Russia he got such a shock he went into hiding, it took his colleagues to pull him out of hiding. Ruthless yes brave no, as all bullies. Churchill for all his faults was man enough to have a go as he had proved on numerous occasions during his life. Stalin kept what he took up to Germany two A bombs stopped him there. We had an Iron Curtain due to Stalin and his Team, Gorbachev changed that but now we are heading back the same way with Putin. Roll on another Gorbachev.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

Thank you sir. I regret the armchair historian criticism’s who speak under the umbrella of freedom you helped provide.

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

The Allies did not allow freedom to their colonies in Europe and the world.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Modern Britain has no freedom the allies stole and destroyed it. Germany had freedom

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkHarrison733 Mark please give us some details of how the nazis catered for the freedom of speech within THEIR colonies?

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Germany did not have any colonies at all. Hitler ended colonialism forever when he forced Churchill to sign the Atlantic Charter.

@nonomnismoriar9051

3 ай бұрын

@@MarkHarrison733 The Germans treated and planned to further treat Eastern Europe with the most thorough, systematized and radical form of colonialism of all time. The first "cleaning" of the "pests" was almost achieved, and we all know what I'm refering to. After the "pests", would come the workable "beasts of burden", the Slavs.

Amazing. So much information from the original source. Loved his observations of the Army and Navy. Still don’t think the RAF has worked that one out.

Excellent, candid and informative. Thanks for posting

Fantastic interview...thanks for posting

And bomber command never got a mention at the end of the war 55000 brave young men killed and it was bomber command who smashed Germany how could Churchill do that to them great men

@alanadair4893

7 ай бұрын

@@monoecumsemperno it wasn’t. It Was Churchill

@richardvernon317

Ай бұрын

@@monoecumsemper It was Churchill, Not Attlee!!!

@monoecumsemper

Ай бұрын

...and bomber command never got a mention AFTER the war either..., (and it was bomber command that smashed Germany) : ATTLEE. Both of them, Churchill and Attlee are to blame: how could THEY do that to them great men.

Arthur Lowe does a very good impression here.

@dfolt

3 жыл бұрын

At first sight, I had the same impression. Where is Sergeant Wilson?

@julianpowell6355

3 жыл бұрын

Just what I was thinking..

@aerialexplorer772

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. But was it Bomber Harris who did the voice to the Mr Men?

As a two year old at the time all I can say is thank you and every one else that put an end to the rampage of the Nazis .

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

At least your speaking Arabic instead of German lol. Boomers be like “British people and Europeans may be a minority by 2060 but at least we don’t have German soldiers here”

@monoecumsemper

Жыл бұрын

@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 So, what DO you have "there" ? Concentration camp guards, right? Get vaporised, the whole rotten warmongering bunch of you.

@edgaraf9411

Жыл бұрын

@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 lol you mean thr German soldiers who killed millions for no good reasons would treat the British well after they occupied them? Sure bud. What a dumb little boy you are

What a great man.... his directing of Bomber Command saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied service personnel. Salute to Sir Arthur.

@ralphbernhard1757

Жыл бұрын

That is an opinion, not an anaylsis. How are you going to prove a statement like "thousands of lives saved"?

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 A 50% reduction in anti tank weapons going to combat units at the front, 57% of large calibre ammunition production going towards the supply of anti aircraft shells, and over 1 million service personnel being withheld from the front for the purposes of conducting the "defence of the reich" is NOT an opinion Ralph.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 It was calculated postwar that each allied bomber shot down by German anti aircraft fire required the expenditure of 16,000 anti aircraft shells.... imagine how many allied tanks, vehicles and personnel were saved by that HUGE & wasteful expenditure of German firepower.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 And thats before we even start talking about the disruption and destruction of the German war industries.

@ralphbernhard1757

Жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Already countered. See the new comments under the video...

"I hope its of some value to future generations, even if it only helps to keep out of these sort of riots. They never do anyone any good in the end."

Found this interview while reading " Bomber Command" Max Hastings. Thank you for posting.

Hero.

Even in his sunset years he was a brilliant and insightful man. The Monday morning quarterbacks who keep pissing on about civilian casualties and bombing of cities need to be kicked in the twins.

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

So glad Ike bankrupted the UK.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Boomer

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Your people are going extinct lollll Brits won’t exist in 100 years thanks to dumb idiots like Churchill, WW2 soldiers and boomers like you😂. Brits will be a hated minority by 2060. Karma. Was it really worth starting a war that lead to your extinction in return for being able to brag and joke about murdering German women and children to people like British boomers like you do?

That was outstanding.

Just watched this and very appropriately it’s St George’s day as I’m doing so. A great Briton who was stiched up by the political elite on both sides of the Atlantic

Politicians, of all stripes, should have this playing on repeat!!!

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal

Amazing interview, rare material and very helpful for every "amateur" or prof historian !

1:29:00 Great men , changes the course of history of second war completely.

Fascinating. The Interviewer was so subservient, it was painful, but Harris didn't really dodge any question. And he made some comments that are very relevant today. I loved how he suggested at the end that War only benefits the loser! I agree, it's shameful how Bomber Command was left without a Campaign Medal.

Having also played Wurlitzer (and other makes) cinema organs, and learnt to fly (admittedly only basic civil single-engined aircraft), I can happily vouch for the complexities of both.

Dresden been real quiet since this dropped

Great man, who carried the war to the enemy when all else was failing.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Be betrayed Britain

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

War criminal

@monoecumsemper

Жыл бұрын

@Brad Brassman : '...who carried the war to the enemy when all else was failing'. Thank you so much. You managed to put the whole truth in a nutshell. Thanks again for so few words for everybody to remember who until now have not even heard of Air Marshal Sir Arthur T. Harris.

@BradBrassman

Ай бұрын

@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 Idiot.

First time seeing this. He apparently attended my school long before I did. Thanks for the vid.

The Allies were fortunate to have both Harris and Dowding on our side of the matter. It's easy to sit back and criticize any man who is shouldering such a great responsibility, especially when the scale of operations is as large as in WWII. Mistakes will be made at all levels of rank and activity, and good people will die. Someone has to stand in those shoes and make those decisions.

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

Harris prolonged the war by refusing to bomb military targets.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Funny that you don’t say the same when it comes to Germans at Nuremberg like Goering and others like goebbels and Hitler etc. you just call them unequivocally evil without nuance and don’t make excuses. You think the Nuremberg trials were just and good only because they fit into your pro government leftist liberal views

@MarkHarrison733

Жыл бұрын

@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 See why Patton condemned the rigged Nuremberg Trials.

Deeply impressive piece with a commander to whom much is owed. Straight from the horse’s mouth.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, he contributed to losing the British Empire. Reality? The big picture... And of all the "big pictures", this is the *biggest of all...* The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire. The British Empire was actually *protected in Europe* by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent. For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, *unable to divert military or economic resources* to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world... According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire... *Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.* Concerning WW2. Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.). After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow). France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings... Germany = alles kaputt Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies... GB was no longer the boss. Nothing left to "balance" with... Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south... Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. *And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...*

The greatest man of ww2

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal

Charming man. Something very Arthur Lowe about him

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Arthur *"I'll call children Nazis and burn them to cinders"* Harris. Winston *"I'll sleep with the Devil for muh beautiful Empire"* Churchill. God [speaking softly]: "Hmmmm. I don't like that..." *Guess who had the last word?*

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

I am aware that this question is irrelevant to the topic but does anyone know the name of the role where you sit in the backseat of a fighter plane such as the tornado

@louislungbubble

6 жыл бұрын

in the RAF the second man is a weapons systems officer . Tornado is a multi -role strike aircraft rather than an a fighter , has an interceptor version I believe .

@lewis_jones9996

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you 🙏🏽

@richardvernon317

5 жыл бұрын

Originally the role was known as the Navigator in the RAF, but that post is now known as Weapon Systems Operator. On entry to service of the Tornado the RAF had five Aircrew trades, Pilot, Navigator, Air Engineer, Air Electronics Operator and Air Load Master. The later three trades were joined into one trade, WSO a few years back, while the Air Engineer trade was disbanded when the last aircraft which required the position was withdraw from service.

@trevorbuchanan6226

3 жыл бұрын

Brave

Simply, Per Ardua Ad Astra.

What an absolutely cool and considered genius of a man. It’s no wonder bomber command achieved what it did with Harris in command.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

What happens if you are an a-hole? Correct answer: At some point a bigger a-hole will come along and screw you over. Brits thought they were sooooo clever... "Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had *the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe.* In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. *Divide and rule, you see.* Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside *we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing:* set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. *The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.* James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal. Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister. [laughs]" From The Complete Yes Minister. No "satire" there at all. That is how they "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. Right though to today, the lords are laughing at your apologia for their failure... They wanted to play divide and rule with the continental powers, and in the end became a tool of Washington DC, and lost the Empire. Sad. The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945. Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was *a scrap of paper.* Awww. No nukes for "best fwiends" 😅😆😁 Subsequently Washington DC made a *pig's breakfast* out of British markets. But...lemme guess: That was London's plan all along, right? 😆😅 To lose Empire was all part of the "great *divide and rule* scheme", right?

Thank you 🙏 for this share

Only 21000 views now that is shocking the whole country should here this well the English not the enemy’s of our great country I.e well you all know what I’m saying

The bombing of London stiffened the resistance of the British . Likewise with the Germans. Dowding saved England.

@samanli-tw3id

4 жыл бұрын

Didn’t bombing of German cities stiffen German resistance?

@stastu6484

3 жыл бұрын

Kind of, but it hindered it far more by bombing supply lines, factories, and keeping german flak guns and fighters behind the front lines

So many people speak so much nonsense about the bombings, they have no clue what they're talking about, wish they watched this maybe it would get through to some of them. Very good explanation about those cities being en route to the alpine redoubt, everybody seems to have forgotten about this. War is terrible business and like Sir Arthur said it is always against general population, where do they get notion that it's just between armies, it was never in history this way, up to this day.

The interviewer sounds like a rather quiet Ed McMahon with his constant "yes yes yes" as Harris is speaking.

great interview. I would have liked to hear his opinion of Sir Hugh Dowding, he didn't answer that one.

Inb4 Ralph Benhard write a 30 page essay.

@ralphbernhard1757

Жыл бұрын

No worries. I'll be back...

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

*It's not a war crime if you win.*

Having just read Bomber Command by Max Hastings,my opinion of Arthur Harris have been changed slightly. I will leave it at that.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. *And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).* From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? *It does not matter.* There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain *"continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."* [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line. *What could possibly go wrong?* I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks yourself. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games. All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries. Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.

Swearing vengeance against your enemy is nothing new to history. Who among us that have read Livy's “War with Hannibal”, have not marched in spirit with his Carthaginian army from the Alps to Cannae and exacted the vengeance upon the Romans as Hannibal's father had sworn him to do? While Sir Arthur watched his beloved London burn during the Blitz, he made his now famous “Reaping the Whirlwind” speech against Germany. And on Dec 8 1941, upon returning to Pearl Harbor; Rear Admiral William F. Halsey echoed Sir Arthur, when at the sight of the wrecks obstructing the fairway at Ford Island, made this less academic utterance.....“Before we're through with 'em, the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell”. War's need such leaders. Denis Richards and Hilary St. George Saunders captured all that will ever need to be said about Sir Arthur..... “Arthur Harris, the resolute chief of Bomber Command. A figure round whom the winds of contention still play, he was as fixed as the proverbial rock. His allotted task was among the most vital of the war and he accomplished it to the full. If some of the consequences appeared odious in the eyes of those who cherish sentimental illusions concerning war, the tenacity and skill with which he carried out his orders cannot be challenged. Restive in the company of those he esteemed fools or hypocrites, at times outspoken to a fault-though rarely without the saving grace of humor-never ready to compromise, he saw his duty plain and fulfilled it. He was first and last and during every moment of his waking hours a warrior in action, intent on one thing only-the destruction of the enemy” It is rumored that there are few reserved seats at the head table in the great hall of Valhalla. I have yet to confirm for myself whom these exalted warrior's of history are. Yet I'd be happy to wager my Queen's shilling on one of them being Sir Arthur. Group Captain's Tony Mason's utter reverence paid towards Sir Arthur Harris and others whom he has had the pleasure to interview should be heralded. Macaulay and Gibbon would indeed be proud of him.

@martinwarner1178

3 жыл бұрын

Bet you have loads of pals....beat em up if the say a wrong word?

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

Fabulous.

Those last comments he made are Gold.

fascinating 👍

Very interesting

Arthur "send the huns to the sun" Harris Arthur "blitz the fritz" Harris

@flakmag1004

3 жыл бұрын

DO IT AGAIN

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Bomber *"expire the Empire"* Harris... Bomber *"burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind"* Harris... One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial ruin... Quote: "The work puts the economic cost of the offensive into its historical context by describing the strategic air offensive and its intellectual underpinnings. Following this preliminary step, the economic costs are described and quantified across a range of activities using accrual accounting methods. The areas of activity examined include the expansion of the aircraft industry, the cost of individual aircraft types, the cost of constructing airfields, the manufacture and delivery of armaments, petrol and oil, and the recruitment, training and maintenance of the necessary manpower. The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is *the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."* [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] Note here, that waaaaaay before Hitler, and loooong before "nasty Wilhelm", it was also British leaders who chose to make every single German citizen the enemy in case of war. Not the other way around. [Google Britannica: London Policy of Balance of Power]

@fridolfmane1063

3 жыл бұрын

"Let the French have it in the neck" Harris.

@KyoushaPumpItUp

3 жыл бұрын

Arthur "Anne Frank gets the gas? Dresden gets the blast" Harris

@fridolfmane1063

3 жыл бұрын

@@KyoushaPumpItUp "KYOUSHA" Lets test the atomic bomb on civilians and then appropriate their culture online. You are disgusting.

FOR ME HE BELONGS ASIDE HENRY V, FRANCIS DRAKE AND NELSON HE MAKES ME PROUD TO BE BRITISH AND YOU CANNOT SAY ANY MORE THAN THAT

@deborahponnaiya4867

4 жыл бұрын

@James Henderson😂😂😂😂😂 spouting your made up rubbish again you poor little man?

@Mr71paul71

4 жыл бұрын

Proud to be British too. Thank God Great Britain can breed men like Harris who strike fear into our enemies hearts

Albert Speer told the allies after the war that "The barrels of 10,000 guns were pointed toward the sky. The same guns could have been employed in Russia against tanks and other ground targets. Had it not been for this new front, that is the air front over Germany, our defensive strength against tanks would have been more than doubled as far as equipment was concerned. Without this great drain on our manpower, logistics, and weapons as a result of the defence of the Reich against the bomber offensive, we might well have knocked Russia out of the war before your invasion of France.”

@JamesHenderson-wk4hd

Жыл бұрын

Speer lied about everything.

@JamesRichards-mj9kw

Жыл бұрын

Speer is not a reliable source.

trivial point but why is this interview in black and white in 1977?

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

Probably a strike at ITV/BBC so blackleg labour using older technology, it happened quite frequently.

Harris was a great man, my all time military hero.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin. Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder... "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] How'd that "flatten Germany" work out after WW2? Rather expensive, hey? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends". So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. Nice exchange. The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity. It only cost the Brits their Empire... Seems like a fair deal.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

So Winston *"expire the Empire"* Churchill... ...teamed up with.... Bomber *"burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind"* Harris... What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, you lose your "empire". One nation's leaders chose to answer with *"more than the measure",* and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin... *Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...* Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment." [Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"] *Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]* Imagine that. A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany. *Lose your Empire, and then some...* Aw well. Too bad. Should've read their Bibles... *"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".* It doesn't say "more than the measure". *OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED* *GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY* *BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED* *PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED"* *EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER* Awww. So sad.

@internetenjoyer1044

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 rather lose the empire to the yanks than to the nazis

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@@internetenjoyer1044 There was another choice around the turn of the century. That was *not lose it at all,* but a few lords made a really really big mistake.

@internetenjoyer1044

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 I'm not sure that letting the Nazis win the world wars would put Britain I'm a better position

Have to laugh at the expectation that people should feel "sorry" for what happened to German cities. Germans have from the earliest days of flight been fascinated with the dropping of as much high explosive on other countries as possible, then when they are shown how to do it properly, they come over all, soft and inoffensive... "only monsters would dream of doing that to innocent civilians" they'd whine, while inwardly harbouring a burning jealousy that they weren't as good at it themselves. But let bygones be bygones I say. 3 cheers for Arthur !!!

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

For all those "reap as you sow"-bible thumpers... Not saying you are one. Just saying 😅 *The Bible also says that the rightious shall inherit the Earth.* Meaning that if one is rightious, one does not have to doubt the own strength, because one will always unite the bigger part of the Earth, which is other rightious people behind one's cause... Correct? No need to "ally with the devil then". Correct? So if the British Empire was sooooooooo rightious, why did it end up *"fighting on the beaches and in the hills"* unable to inspire millions of other rightious *"very well alone" then?* Hmmmmm?? Care to answer or does the truth create discomfort?

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

2 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 I'm relaxed agnostic Ralph who has his own moral compass, and as such don't need to refer to religious texts. Just remember that Germany in WW2 was bombing civilians 11 months before ANY bombs fell on a German city.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 And I'm a relaxed atheist who quotes the Bible when it makes perfect analytical/logical sense. These observations are a result of thousands of years of observation. Their modern equivalent are "cognitive biases" and "fallacious argumentation", which can both be google for more info...

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Every country which starts a war is also the first to use weapons, incl. bombs and aircraft. *20 years before that it was your Empire, but I assume you are going to defend bombing innocent civilians because of bias...* British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them... The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home. It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces". *So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?* From historynet: "Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. *When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group.* Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..." Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians... *Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.* Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over... Well. Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

2 жыл бұрын

​@@ralphbernhard1757 Who undertook the VERY FIRST USE IN HISTORY of aerial civilian terror bombing? THE GERMANS, when they bombed Liege on the 6th August 1914, just 8 days after the start of WW1 and less than 11 years after the invention of powered flight. Both in WW1 AND WW2 Germany was bombing civilians before ANY bombs fell on a German city.

I think Laurence Olivier played Chief Harris more in the film Battle of Britain than Chief Dowding. All really smart men.

@simonhellier7281

3 жыл бұрын

No! Very much Downing. “Not one more fighter must be sent across the Channel”.

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Dowding yes. Harris no. Questions like "was a war crime", or simplistic justifications like "revenge for >insert German war crime

@rayw3294

3 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 He looks like Harris more.

In a time of war you needed men like harris in charge..

A great man. Thank you for your service to Britain.

Greatest Marshal Harris and thank you for your job.

Harris was a part of a bigger issue. From atomicheritage(dot)org "In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, *“Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [code word for "nukes"] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement”* (Goldschmidt 217). Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. *President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.* The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets." [End of quote] Not just a minor detail, but part of a pattern of measures Washington DC/The American Century would take to overpower London. That what happens when ones own empire is lead by "idealists", who go off in search of *faraway empires* in order to avoid having to make compromises with neighbors. Brits should have made an alliance with Wilhelmine Germany (around 1900), and *that* would have saved their "empire". Idealism" was thinking that "speaking English" was enough common ground to save the Empire...

@ozymandias5513

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah...Unfortunately Kaiser Wilhelm was rather good at pissing us off

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozymandias5513 Unfortunately Kaiser Bill lived in a country which united, grew way above its neighbours in population figures, GDP (industrial production) and wanted a "piece of the pie" called "world". The greedy *"less for thee means more for me"-crowd* didn't want to let him into the "cool kids' beach club" *in the sun* :-)

@ozymandias5513

3 жыл бұрын

@@ralphbernhard1757 yeah that, and he also called England Mad March hare. I’m sure that helped the British to see his side

What does CASPS mean?

Brave man💙

Clearist military thinker in history

4 жыл бұрын

With the WRONG strategy

@trevorbuchanan6226

3 жыл бұрын

You forgot monty.

Cometh the hour cometh the man ! . War is organised insanity ( J R . MOORE )

@ralphbernhard1757

3 жыл бұрын

Great Britain entered the war under the rather childish delusion that they'll "never surrender". Of course they did. *It just wasn't in 1940.* It just wasn't what anybody expected... Their "best fwiends" had a plan... "At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] How'd that work out for GB after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets. *The cornerstone of Empire, that is "markets" and "trade", stolen by "best fwiends".*

interviewer: "yes yes yes yes"😄

War Criminal

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

His "service to King and country" came with a price tag: The end of his beloved Empire... So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] *In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.* The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf... In case of differences? Pick the side *against* the strongest power. In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win. That is how the lords "played". Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists. After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule. Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. *Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...* Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule. Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule... Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule... Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent. These are the "tools" of "divide and rule". Never a *"price tag" for own actions and inactions...* Right? WRONG *Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."* Right? WRONG To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere... "By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World *for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea* and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet." [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.... Right? WRONG After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint. *What could possibly go wrong?* "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] A "ring which ruled them all". *The American Century.* So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".* US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt. They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE. Right? WRONG... A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends". Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe they should have informed themselves *how "empires" tick,* because there was another "ring". *Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...* And after the war ended? They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL Of course not. Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner... So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC. That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting. Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. Sad...

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Жыл бұрын

You've mis spelt it, its "w - a - r h - e - r - o".

@ralphbernhard1757

Жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Exchange the "h" with an "z" and you'll be closer to the truth.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

Arthur "blitz the fritz" Harris

@leehotspur9679

3 жыл бұрын

And did a sterling job

This old geezer lived close by. Small guy, slight build. In no way imposing or loud. One day he gives me his green baize pilot log book from WW2. 30 plus Lancaster operations: Berlin, Berlin, Hamburg, Berlin, etc.. Guy (and crew) shouldn't have been alive. Way against the odds. Do not often encounter self-effacing people like that, with a welcoming cup of tea too, anymore in UK. So many loud and entitled, and at times disrespectful, people.

When i stated work in the 1960's i worked with a man that was in the RAF during WW2. I asked him what did you do? He replied " Lad, i worked for Bert Arris!! " Where did you work? Germany lad, all over Germany!!!

Rest In Peace sir. And thank your for national duty. Thank you. From one of millions who now lives in peace and prosperity. Thank you indeed

@markharrison2544

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah - thanks for helping half of Europe get overrun by Communism, beginning with Poland in 1939.

@Johnny-ue6hg

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah fuck this old guy

@phillipjohnson7711

4 жыл бұрын

RIP sir

@somebodyonce5976

4 жыл бұрын

@@markharrison2544 Preferable that the Soviets occupy Eastern Europe than to have the Nazis genocide half the continent.

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

This man is a true hero. No woke crap here.

@ralphbernhard1757

2 жыл бұрын

He drove nails into the coffin of the British Empire...

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

He was a war criminal murderer who committed brutal genocide against the German people

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098

Жыл бұрын

Supporting Harris is woke crap. Antifa love bomber Harris. In Dresden Antifa chant “do it again”

A great leader of Bomber Command. He was let down by all politicians including Chuchill.

😍