I’ve just read Deighton’s “Fighter” over the summer break. God knows why I’d never read it before but there you go. The forward is by the very intriguing AJP Taylor and, from what I can tell, the book seems to be generally ackowledged as a well researched account of the BoB. But for me the book raises as many questions as it answers. Make no mistake, I learnt a lot (assuming it’s on the money) but there are some aspects of it I find remarkable and I will test them on this forum. The first is the discussion, in the chapter on ACM Sir Hugh Dowding, about the war cabinet meeting of 15 May 1940.
Deighton notes that on 10 May the great blitzkreig of 1940 began – panzer columns crossed the French borders and headed for the Meuse and; “The French asked the British to employ their heavy bomber force against the German columns”. At the meeting of the War Cabinet on 15 May it was agreed that RAF Bomber Command be authorised to attack and on the same night “the RAF mounted the largest air bombardment the world had yet to see”. But it was directed at various targets in the Ruhr, not the advancing German forces.
He goes on to note that the French argued desperately that air attacks upon the Ruhr would have no effect upon Guderian’s armoured invasion of France. They were right, in fact the attacks had little or no effect at all. Deighton says that the RAF official history admits that the bombers achieved none of their objectives. Industrial damage was negligible. He also says the official history goes on to explain that the greatest benefit expected from this opening shot of the strategic bombing of Germany was [apparently quoting the official history] ‘an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.’ and thereby indirectly support by the French by drawing away some Luftwaffe strength.
Well I’ll be amazed. I know it was war, but it was early days and the UK largely untouched and things were still fairly, shall we say, chivalrous. An invitation by the War cabinet to bomb its own citizens? Any students of RAF Bomber Command and/or the strategic bombing campaign care to discuss?
By: John C - 19th January 2005 at 16:47
Spamcan:
Hmm, I would have said attacking the Soviet Union head on was their biggest mistake… only an idiot would open a second front without dealing with the first
And the reason he didn’t even come close to finishing “us” off was because of the switch from airfield bombing to the bombing of London – and that (if some accounts are to be believed) was due to Georing and Hitler’s pride being hurt by the bombing of Berlin.
With the RAF out of the way, an invasion would probably have been launched. The success of such a venture will never be known, but if successful (the defeat of Great Britain) it would have taken America out of the European theatre leaving Russia vulnerable to the full force of Germany’s military.
Again, it would be conjecture to decide on an outcome, but with England out the picture, North Africa would have been in Axis hands, and the Middle East as well? The Japanese would have had a free reign in the Far East (and one would assume that Hitler would have counselled Tojo against any Imperial ambitions towards US interests in the Pacific – at least in the short term).
So we have Russia fighting a war on 2 fronts with no support from a defeated Great Britain and a now (probably) neutral USA against 2 opponents with no other major conflicts to support. Considering the Germans almost took Moscow, would this have tipped the balance in their favour?
and now, back to the thread!
Not a chance 🙂 Thread diversion is my speciality – I’m aspiring to Melvism (or should that be Melvic Zen?) in the art of bending threads to my will.
Anyhow, James did say discuss… It’s all his fault
JC
A bigger boy did it and ran away
By: JDK - 19th January 2005 at 01:16
And what Churchill said and what was recorded and what was published in an official document and what was published in his own memoirs could be (up to) 4 different things.
Just bein’ akward. 😉
By: dhfan - 19th January 2005 at 00:30
Hmm. I’ll have a look at Churchill’s History of WW2 as well, but whatever the reasoning may have been, I’ll be seriously surprised if it’s expressed so bluntly.
By: Smith - 19th January 2005 at 00:24
dhfan – no rush, but would you mind looking up any references to the War Cabinet meeting of 15 May 1940 and/or the associated decision to launch the strikes in the Ruhr. Perhaps we can verify at least this aspect of Mr Deighton’s book (ref my opening post in this thread). Many thanks, Don
By: dhfan - 19th January 2005 at 00:21
He refers often (and in particular re. my orginal question) to the RAF Official History. Is that some sort of accessible historical document?
Yes, Royal Air Force 1939 – 1945, published in 3 volumes by HMSO.
Further details if required – it’s in t’other room and I’m not moving for the moment.
By: Spamcan - 18th January 2005 at 11:00
As it turned out the London bombing was one of the Nazis worst mistakes (perhaps their worst mistake).
Hmm, I would have said attacking the Soviet Union head on was their biggest mistake… only an idiot would open a second front without dealing with the first – and every armchair general knows they should have attacked via the middle east and Iraq to secure the oil (wait a minute – hasn’t somebody just done that? Hmmm…)
and now, back to the thread! 😀
By: Charley - 17th January 2005 at 22:38
I thought that the bombing of German industrial targets during the Battle of France was something of a pointless exercise when I first read about it in “Before The Storm”. But if that strategic bombing was intended to provoke equally pointless Luftwaffe bombing of London then there was some purpose behind it. As it turned out the London bombing was one of the Nazis worst mistakes (perhaps their worst mistake). So if it was part of a Churchill plot he probably exceeded beyond expectations. But at this distance I don’t see how we can be sure what someone as shrewd as Churchill was thinking 65 years ago. An interesting thread.
By: JDK - 17th January 2005 at 22:29
JDK, what makes Deighton any different from him??
Eh? Oh, I’ll just take Damien’s comment from the Battle of Britain as probably 1 in 1,000 differences? Or a forward by AJP Taylor? or… Don’t be SILLY Andy, it doesn’t become you. 😉
If you want to make a comparison worth something, try Len Deighton vs David Irving. David Irving – a sucessful author with a lot of research done, is now discredited in a English court of falifying data and lying. Still out there with his website, but not to be believed. Now, Andy, Deighton isn’t in that league, and I have AJP Taylor and the Battle of Britain society in one corner, and my mate Andy Jones who sa ‘Clart’ (Not a famous term of academic evidence used for rebuttal – yet) in ‘tother. It’s a bit unballanced. Can you add some detail to the ‘Clart’? 😀 And I know you are to honest to NOT say – “I read it liked/did not liked it, found 8 errors but am big enough to say it was otherwise accurate – at 300+(?) pages…”
Gnome – Off topic r us. I’d be shocked if a thead sta on topic. 😉
There’s no arguing that the RAF greeted the bombing of London with relief. It is reasonable to guess that Chruchill was relieved at that turn of events, but I can recall no evidence to say so – and as for an ‘invitation’ I also can’t recall any evidence.
Did Churchill, like any leader, sacrifice his people for the greater good? Yes. It’s part of the job. Not a lot of use, I know, but just my opinion FWIW.
As they sa, discuss!
By: Smith - 17th January 2005 at 21:47
Andy – yes he does quote sources – and there is an extensive bibliography. What I don’t know of course, without reading the exact passages in those texts, is whether he has read them as background references, or is directly quoting them, to create his arguments. The difficulty here is that he has written a book, rather in the style of a documentary. Think of Mike Moore and how one side of the truth can be placed on a pedestal as the whole truth.
So I honestly don’t know on this point, and many others in the book. Hence the value of a critique.
He refers often (and in particular re. my orginal question) to the RAF Official History. Is that some sort of accessible historical document?
By: Dan Johnson - 17th January 2005 at 21:47
I remember early on in my Spit XII hunting days someone I corresponded with saying about Deighton ” as a writer of history, he writes great fiction…”
Seems like this was shortly after my reading “Fighter” 🙂
Dan
By: Andy in Beds - 17th January 2005 at 21:36
Gnome,
does Deighton quote sources for this idea that Churchill encouraged the Germans to bomb England?
Unsubstantiated hearsay doesn’t normally pass muster as historical evidence.
Last year we shredded some poor old boy on here regarding Douglas Bader and unsubstantiated claims.
JDK, what makes Deighton any different from him??
For your information (Gnome, JDK Damien) if I get the book Sunday I shall start reading it in my lunch hour each day from Monday onwards, building whatever case I feel I need to build from there.
Looking forward to it.
Later
A…
By: Smith - 17th January 2005 at 21:16
This thread has drifted off my question … into an alternative and very interesting discussion – namely the veracity of Deighton’s “history” of the BoB. I’m looking forward to Andy’s critique as much as anyone, thank you Damien for the book!
But reverting to the original question if I may. In the final chapter entitled ‘The Results’ Deighton says that Britain’s commanders breathed a sigh of relief when the Luftwaffe began to bomb London. This was from 7 September 1940. He then goes on to say that …
[quote] Some said that the bombing of London was the very reaction that Churchill had hoped to provoke when he sent the RAF to Berlin on Sunday 25 August. If that was his intention – and Churchill was a master of strategy – he never admitted it was so. To have contrived that London was bombed, even as a war-winning master-stroke, would still have damaged his reputation. [unquote]
Indeed, but my original post (#1 above) also quotes Deighton, himself quoting the RAF Official History, noting that (the War Cabinet or the RAF?) extended a similar unofficial invitation a few months earlier (during the Battle of France). Note that Churchill certainly chaired the War Cabinet and it has been argued often enough (eg: re Dresden) he effectively directed the RAF.
I’m disappointed Deighton didn’t see fit to compare the two issues and raise the obvious (and to Dave’s point, unwanted) question “what sort of responsible person would ‘invite’ the bombing of his/her own people?” The answer is of course – a thick skinned pragmatist. Sound like anyone?
edits = grammar not content
By: Andy in Beds - 17th January 2005 at 17:00
Yes.
I will bring a copy to OW at the weekend.
Good, see you there.
A.
By: von Perthes - 17th January 2005 at 11:40
“Come friendly bombs, fall on Slough” – Betjamin
‘Get rid of unsightly Staines with an SC 2500’
By: Eddie - 17th January 2005 at 11:30
Whilst I can’t vouch for the ultimate accuracy of “Fighter”, I remember buying a copy the first time I went to IWM Lambeth. I must have been about 12 at the time, and reading that book really changed my perspective on the Battle of Britain – until then I’d believed the figures of 185 knocked down in a day, that the Germans were barbarians just out to cause destruction and death, etc etc – but “Fighter” went through all the stages of the battle from both sides, and gave an even handed view of things.
I must admit – I read The Right of the Line quite recently but I found it quite dry – “Fighter” captured my imagination, and even if it wasn’t totally accurate, most of the main themes have been backed up by everything that I have read subsequently.
By: Smith - 17th January 2005 at 09:22
You’re absolutely right Dave, and much of our WWII history is written from the point of view of the Allies as victors. On another note, Flour bombing was also popular in New Zealand during the 1981 Springbok Tour …. not a great photo, but here you go … 😉
By: Dave Homewood - 17th January 2005 at 09:09
Is Len Deighton’s book ‘Battle of Britain’ very good or is it too supposedly dodgy on facts? I read that years ago and learned a lot from it. I’d hate to think what I learned was wrong.
This may or may not apply here, I don’t know as I haven’t read Fighter. But I always find it interesting how one or two books on a subject can set up facts in people’s minds seemingly set like concrete, and then another book with different facts may make all those people say instantly – “It’s wrong, it’s rubbish, he’s talking crap.” And yet that author may have researched just as hard and uncovered the facts from a different point of view, a different angle, and as everybody has a subjectivity that is unique, they will tell ‘their’ truth to the researcher. But as ‘their’ truth differs from the original truth, that have now become ‘fact’, they’re shouted down as wrong. Do you see what I mean. No book can ever be definitive, nor can any documentary or dramtic recreation of events. They are merely one view of looking at the set of facts, with some views of the truth prominent and some omitted. Everything is subjective, and because it is different doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It is working out which truth most fits you that matters. Like the recent debate over flour bombs being dropped as practice. It is a truth, but one that the majority hadn’t heard of through ‘their’ books, so it was not considered true. See what I mean?
Of course, there are also books utterly full of bullshine too! But that is another matter.
I am looking forward to seeing your critique Andy, and the rebuttals if any come. We shall all probbaly learn some interesting new angles on the Battle of Britain. Cheers.
By: Wombat - 17th January 2005 at 07:25
Did somebody mention Slough?
I’ve been to Slough – how did they miss it?
Wombat 😉
By: JDK - 17th January 2005 at 05:05
“Come friendly bombs, fall on Slough” – Betjamin
By: srpatterson - 17th January 2005 at 03:37
…He also says the official history goes on to explain that the greatest benefit expected from this opening shot of the strategic bombing of Germany was [apparently quoting the official history] ‘an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.’ …
Too bad they didn’t invite the Luftwaffe to bomb Basingstoke…
Sign In
January 15, 2005 at 9:08 am