© harpercollins publishers 2010 interpretation should we take down the statue of ‘bomber...
TRANSCRIPT
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Should we take down the statue of ‘Bomber Harris’?
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Objectives
In this activity you will:
Discuss how we should remember leaders.
Explore why it took so long to put up a statue of Bomber
Harris.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Why such fuss about a statue?
Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris was in charge of the
RAF’s Bomber Command in World War Two.
He was the man blamed for the destruction of
Dresden, a city in Germany, which was firebombed
in February 1945 despite many claiming it was
not a strategic target.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Why such fuss about a statue?
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Why such fuss about a statue?
When a statue of Harris was unveiled in London
in 1992, many people booed.
The statue had been paid for by public contributions.
People in Germany said it was insensitive to
make Bomber Harris a hero.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
To get you thinking…
Do you think Harris is a war hero or a war criminal?
Why do you hold such views?
Why are there many controversies surrounding
actions committed during times of war?
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Should the statue go?
Historian one
The statue should stay. Harris is a war hero. He took control of Bomber Command in 1942 when the War wasn’t going very well and he changed the course of the War.
In particular, Harris realised it was important to destroy the industries that supplied the German armed forces. In January 1945, Albert Speer, the German Minister of War Production and his officials, calculated that the bombing had led to Germany producing 35% fewer tanks, 31% fewer aircraft, and 42% fewer trucks.
Therefore, Harris played a key role in winning the War.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Should the statue go?
Historian twoI am sorry but I disagree. It was insensitive to put up a statue of Bomber Harris.
He oversaw the policy change from precision bombing - hitting specific targets such as factories and railways, to area bombing - destroying whole areas of towns and cities.
Many innocent civilians died during the bombing of Dresden. It wasn’t even a strategic target and the way was coming to a close anyway. There was no need to bomb Dresden and no need to put up a statue of Harris.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Now it’s your turn…
Which of the historians do you agree with? Why do
you agree with them?
Are there any points that you can think of that the
two historians haven’t covered?
Be prepared to present your judgement to the rest of
the group.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Now it’s your turn…
What is your interpretation of ‘Bomber’ Harris?
What more would you need to know to make a reasoned
conclusion?