My final word on Mr Jacubs

I reproduce below Mr Jacubs’s two responses to my own rebuttal of his contribution.

 

I do so to explain why I shall not be engaging with him any further. I did so mainly because he persisted in posting comments which made personal attacks on me and my motives (and subsequently cast doubt on my loyalty to this country). I believe I have dealt with those. In his responses below he does not concede a single point or offer any sort of apology for these personal slights. He continues to misrepresent my position in various ways which suggest he has not made any effort to understand it, and in any case prefers to believe his version of what I think and say, to what I actually do think and say.  

 

He does not acknowledge the clear and indisputable evidence (provided by Harris himself without any sort of hesitation or equivocation, and fatal to Mr Jacubs’s position)  that Arthur Harris knowingly followed a policy of deliberately attacking civilians in their homes. In response to my many rebuttals ( I would say refutations) of his various claims against me and against my arguments, he neither counters, nor does he concede.  So far as I can tell, he remains unmoved in any way by anything  I have said, and I rather expect that he will be posting more of his dreary and unresponsive assaults on my character in the months to come. So be it. Worse things happen in big ships, as my father used to say. I now know it will not be worth responding.

 

The argument was, as all arguments are, useful to me in helping me to refine my position. It may have been useful to other contributors and readers, unfamiliar with this important dispute. I am glad if this was so.  As for me, I now know that there is no point in arguing with Mr Jacubs, as he is not actually interested in considering any point of view but his own on this subject (believing as he does that those who differ from him are motivated by disloyalty and other ignoble influences and personal failings) , and I shall not do so again.

 

I am chided by one reader for arguing with Mr Jacubs,  because of his age. Mr Jacubs has made no such complaint on his own behalf, and I would point out that he picked this fight, in a most aggressive manner. He has also lost it, but like so many people who lose arguments, he is sublimely unaware of the fact.   

 

This is what Mr Jacubs has said:

 

‘I have read Mr Hitchen's reply and have come to a conclusion on this matter. I will make some comment in reply but this can go on and on forever. I do have not, do not and will never believe that the bombing of Germany by Bomber Command and the USAAF both of whom killed thousands of civilians was a deliberate plan to do just that. I will say here that I am not a fan of Bomber Harris but not for the reason given by Mr Hitchens. I firmly believe that Harris overdid everything with regard to the bombing campaign. He sent far too many aircraft loaded with far too many bombs to far too many targets. Thus he was responsible for the death of thousands of RAF aircrew. That said I do not believe his flamboyant speeches indicate he deliberately target innocent civilians. Many mistakes were made and lives (on both sides) lost because of them. However this discussion was originally about the bombing campaign and whether it had shortened the war and I believe it did by anything up to a year. Somewhere or other I know Albert Speer agreed with this view. This discussion then moved to the subject of civilian deaths which is highly emotive and like Mr Hitchens I am being drawn into personal accusations which do not in any way contribute positively to this discussion. This whole matter was initially raised because of Bishop Bell's wartime speeches. I have stated clearly that I regard him as a good man who in my opinion spoke misguidedly at a sensitive period in the largest global conflict of all time. I clearly stated he was the opposite of being pro Nazi and I am rather surprised Mr Hitchens had not clearly read my comment. I know a fair amount about the history of WW2 for I lived through the worst of it and survived the blitz by a few yards. I could quote other people who I and my parents knew and suffered dreadfully, much worse than I, during the Battle of Britain and the months of the night time bombing. I am sure Mr Hitchen's knowledge exceeds mine in various fields but neither of us can conclusively prove our point. Mr Hitchens has said I am obviously an angry man (or some such phrases) in many parts of his arguments. I totally admit to that. I have both lived through and read the history of that dreadful war. A close family friend and a hero of mine lived just 5 doors away. He was a bomb aimer on Lancasters and was killed over Germany in November 1944. His mother died of a broken heart and his father soon after that. This story has indeed contributed to my anger. The Germans started this war – that is to say the attack on our country – and men like my friend Alan who was just 22 were drawn into the conflict to die a horrible death. I am so thankful that the Bomber Command memorial has at last been erected and dedicated to the 55,500 men who died. The war Germany started cost the lives of 451,000 Britons. I weep for them all for they would all have lived but for Germany and the Nazis. I had prepared answers to most of Mr Hitchen's replies to mine which were in reply to his original article. This argument is both emotive and perpetual. He says I support the killing of babies, I rightly take exception to this quite awful slight and then no doubt he will come back with further slights. I go on refuting them and try hard not to do the same to him but what is it all for? These are no longer comments and replies – it is a full scale no holds barred contest of words – some unpleasant, some accusing, some unkind, most untrue ad infinitum. I have just read through the draft replies I had prepared to post tonight and can see how this is losing its substance. Becoming a little bit “ya booish” on both sides. Mr Hitchens might disagree but I can see what I see. So to sum up from my side. 1. I believe the bombing of Germany by all sides was absolutely necessary and considerably shortened the war. 2. At no time do I believe it was the intention of anyone (including Harris) to deliberately target civilians. I do accept that there was an intention to bomb and kill war workers who were clearly legitimate targets. 3. I accept as I always have that the killing of women (not involved in war work) and children was dreadful but in my opinion unavoidable. 4. I believe that Bishop Bell and the minority who supported him were misguided.

 

I would like to make some final points regarding the recent argument with Mr Hitchens over the bombing of Germany. It started as a journalistic column but turned into a full scale argument largely due to Mr Hitchen's intransigence and my resulting “red mist of anger”. Let me thank those people here who supported my stance whether wholeheartedly or in parts. This is to me a very emotive subject and let us be honest no one will ever know for sure the ultimate effect the bombing campaign had on the outcome of WW2. I lived through some of the worst of the German bombing (the blitz) spending every night down our shelter for months on end. I saw the thousands of children being evacuated from London and witnessed London burning night after night. I remember the tears and outright anger (which I found difficult to understand at the time) of two women whose husbands had been killed in the war. I remember coming up from our shelter to find three houses opposite destroyed with – as I found out later – loss of life in each house. I watched a landmine descend by parachute and destroy a local golf pavilion killing 3 occupants. I remember making a visit to Ipswich near where I was born sometime in 1943 and joining in the cheers as bombers of the USAAF flew overhead to bomb Germany in the daytime. I remember the V1 flying bombs (doodlebugs) on the first morning they were launched when one landed a few hundred yards away killing 35 people including many damage repair workers on a bus. I remember the thuds of the V2 rockets as they landed day and night for weeks. I remember going up to London with my parents on VE day in May 1945 to cheer Churchill and the Royal Family. That was a great day. These experiences moulded my life and my views on life. I came of age as it were in the 1950's which was a peaceful period of hope in which my family,friends and neighbours came to terms with life. I did my National Service (3 years) in Germany half of which was in Hamburg. In 1952 half the city had been magnificently rebuilt the other half was still in ruins. This did not however influence one way or the other my views about our bombing them. Finally I just wish to say that my great anger is aimed at those who only read of this war to end all wars and then past verdict on what they consider our wrongdoings. With some it is an obsession 70 years after the conflict to seek out anything negative they can find, win appraisal from those on the political left and stand patriotism on its head by blackening the memory of those who fought for the freedom we have today. I frequently thank God for that freedom – a freedom that is now I fear being rapidly eroded.