RAF "On Strike"

[B-24J]

I found this in an old manual I purchased.

You may recall the "Band of Brothers" episode "Points" where the US Paratroopers were being sent home using a point system.

I had not thought about the our Allies like the RAF having problems with the demobilization process at the end of WW2.


John

 

[Edward]

First time I ever heard of the points system was in an episode of Mash (largely surrounding Hawkeye's frustration at the points required to get out of Korea being significantly raised just as he is closing in on the magic number). I can well imagine men who were not career military finding long delays in getting home after the fighting is done to be interminable... I don't know how long this took in 45, though I do recall reading that many Irishmen who fought for the Brits in the Great War weren't home until into 1919 (a possible factor in the 1918 General Election, in which it has long been theorised by some commentators that postal votes for military men still overseas were tampered with).

 

[Stearmen]

That was part of Joseph Heller's inspiration for Catch 22. they kept raising the number of missions required to go home. Heller flew 60 missions in the Mediterranean.

 

[RegentSt1965]

Thanks for posting the memo. My father was in Bomber Command and I learnt from his recently received Service Record that he was posted to South East Asia Command as the European war ended. We knew he'd been in Burma, Egypt, India etc. , but not the precise chronology, and presumed it was during the War, not after. Of course, like all those brave young men he never complained or talked much about his time in BM. I learnt of the strikes a little while ago (Dad died in the 90's unfortunately) and guessed there was an awful lot going on at the time; political upheavals in the area, vested interests, UK's strategic outlook, commercial forces (e.g. rubber, oil etc.) , populations freed from years of foreign hegemony etc. , etc. In short, a dangerous mess. There were also, I gather, some very real local grievances.
I find the phrase "needs of civilian industry " ,in the memo, very interesting. On one hand I guess it refers to our strategic supplies post-war, on the other to restoring rubber etc. to Western interests rather than to the countries themselves. No wonder the lads just wanted to get home!

 

[Two Types]

I believe that the author John Sommerfield (a Communist Party member and RAF fitter, I believe) was active in the strikes/mutiny. I have a very limited knowledge of the situation in the Far East but I beleive that many troops were utterly disinterested in any military activity that was intended to bolster the business interests of the UK/Netherlands etc in the Far East and had little motivation to work to re-establish colonial power.

 

[RegentSt1965]

That was the impression I had from various sources and from general knowledge of the era.
Dad was a Labour party activist in the 50's and coming from a Welsh coal mining background had significant neo-communist leanings. Really wish I had know about this early and could have talked to him about it before he died.

 

[Edward]

I believe that the author John Sommerfield (a Communist Party member and RAF fitter, I believe) was active in the strikes/mutiny. I have a very limited knowledge of the situation in the Far East but I beleive that many troops were utterly disinterested in any military activity that was intended to bolster the business interests of the UK/Netherlands etc in the Far East and had little motivation to work to re-establish colonial power.

How times have changed.

I actually find this sort of thing really interesting - it's indicative of the human side of the war and its aftermath, the effect on the men who fought, and so on. All stuff that, as the generation who lived it pass into memory, it is essential to preserve lest the War becomes nothing more than a fetishised, Hollywood-informed jingoism.

 

[SHOWSOMECLASS]

While watching a history channel the theme was WWii post war. First new fact I have learned about the war in a long time.
It stated in some areas of Asia, in certain circumstances after the Japanese surrender the British were incapable of governing. Marshall or military law was instituted and the Japanese military would be once again governing.
This would
(A) maintain communal continuity
(B) provide authority in the vacuum of no government.
Therefore after the surrender the Japanese continued to govern.

CAN YOU IMAGINE?!

 

[Two Types]

How times have changed.

I actually find this sort of thing really interesting - it's indicative of the human side of the war and its aftermath, the effect on the men who fought, and so on. All stuff that, as the generation who lived it pass into memory, it is essential to preserve lest the War becomes nothing more than a fetishised, Hollywood-informed jingoism.

Shameless plug here, but in my book 'To the Victor the Spoils' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/To-Victor-Spoils-Sean-Longden/dp/1845295188) I covered the impact of war on political beliefs for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I have long been concerned that later generations would grow to consider that 'King and Country' was the only motivation for the soldiers of WW2. Whereas in reality, the political awakening of those serving in the forces was a major factor in the 1945 Labour government coming to power. One of my interviewees summed it up perfectly when he told me of a saying that was common in his regiment: "Churchill for the war, Attlee for the peace."

Another of my interviewees, when asked about his motivation in going to war said that he never fought for 'King and Country' but that he was fighting for his home town, effectively he said he was fighting for the people in his own street. Another said he wasn't fighting for 'King and Country' but was fighting for Yorkshire.

It's easy to see how men with these attitudes would have been far from happy about re-imposing colonial power in the Far East.

 

[Two Types]

How times have changed.

I actually find this sort of thing really interesting - it's indicative of the human side of the war and its aftermath, the effect on the men who fought, and so on. All stuff that, as the generation who lived it pass into memory, it is essential to preserve lest the War becomes nothing more than a fetishised, Hollywood-informed jingoism.

Shameless plug here, but in my book 'To the Victor the Spoils' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/To-Victor-Spoils-Sean-Longden/dp/1845295188) I covered the impact of war on political beliefs for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I have long been concerned that later generations would grow to consider that 'King and Country' was the only motivation for the soldiers of WW2. Whereas in reality, the political awakening of those serving in the forces was a major factor in the 1945 Labour government coming to power. One of my interviewees summed it up perfectly when he told me of a saying that was common in his regiment: "Churchill for the war, Attlee for the peace."

Another of my interviewees, when asked about his motivation in going to war said that he never fought for 'King and Country' but that he was fighting for his home town, effectively he said he was fighting for the people in his own street. Another said he wasn't fighting for 'King and Country' but was fighting for Yorkshire.

It's easy to see how men with these attitudes would have been far from happy about re-imposing colonial power in the Far East.

 

[Two Types]

apologies for the double post

 

[Story]

That was part of Joseph Heller's inspiration for Catch 22. they kept raising the number of missions required to go home. Heller flew 60 missions in the Mediterranean.

Exactly my first thought.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/july-dec99/heller_12-13.html

 

[B-24J]

For the USAAF heavy bombers in the Mediterranean Theater, initially (1942) there was NO limit to the number of missions flown.

Later, due to crew discontent at the number of losses, a 200 combat hour limit was instituted. Of course combat hours were accumulated by missions where bombs were dropped on the target. A crew could fly for hours to a target, through the FLAK and the fighters, and if the bombs were not dropped on the target for whatever reason - no credit.

My Dad, stationed in Italy (44-45), would complain about their having to fly supply missions to Tito's partisans over enemy territory and not getting mission credit for it. He did say that Tito granted the pilots flying the supply drops Yugoslavian wings. He never actually received the wings, but if he ever got a pair they could be worn.

As the war progressed more planes and crew became available. This allowed for some crew rotation and everyone did not have to fly on every mission. 35 then later 50 missions before a flyer was done became the norm.

I have a letter sent home from a pilot complaining that as a squadron commander he was not permitted to fly every mission. He wanted to get it over with as soon as possible.

In Story's article on Joseph Heller's "Catch-22", Alan Arkin's character no longer wants to fly. The Pennsylvania Cable Network runs interviews with veterans. One was a B-17 pilot who was in the 8th Air Force. He stated that no one was forced to fly. If a crew member wanted to be grounded, he was assigned ground duties.

John

 

[Story]

Not so much of an article as a direct quote from the novel, which I recommend to anyone who hasn't read it yet. http://www.amazon.com/Catch-22-Joseph-Heller/dp/3866155239

If the Air Force was anything like the Army, I suspect individual Squadron and Group commands might have had their own interpretations of the rules.

 

[rjb1]

Be sure to distinguish between the number of missions required to get taken out of combat in the air arms while the war was going on, and the number of points everyone needed to go home after the war was over.
My dad - in an armored division, but low on points - was "stuck" in Europe on occupation duty well into 1946. They took over a posh Bavarian resort hotel to live in (as in "Band of Brothers"), so they had it made, but they all wanted to be *home*.
One aspect of his situation that was almost funny (in retrospect) was that at the end of the war his division was split up, with half being sent to the US to get re-trained and re-equipped to participate in the invasion of Japan. The other half (my dad's) stayed put for occupation duty.
He said at first they thought the ones who remained in Europe were the lucky ones - who wants to fight the Japanese?? However, due to the atomic bomb the war ended far earlier than expected, and those who were in the US already got immediate discharges. His half of the division was kept on in Germany for a long time.
Better than invading Japan, of course, but worse than being at home.