MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088844205 · doi:10.1353/jmh.0.0297

Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-45 (review)

2009· article· en· W2088844205 on OpenAlex
Randall Wakelam

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrategic bombingOffensivePoliticsLawHistoryCombatantSpanish Civil WarPolitical scienceOperations researchEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-45 Randall T. Wakelam Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-45. By Randall Hansen.. Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2008. ISBN 978-0-385-66403-5. Illustrations. Notes. Index. Pp. xi, 353. $35.00 Cdn. Fire and Fury by Canadian political scientist Randall Hansen is an examination of the Combined Bomber Offensive against Germany. Using a story telling style reminiscent of Martin Middlebrook, Hansen argues that Air Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris's area bombing did not win the war, but rather lengthened it. While this line of reasoning has been well debated by military historians, Hansen uses it as the basis for a long and fairly aggressive attack on Harris and the immorality of area bombing in comparison to the ethical precision campaign waged by the United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe (USSTAF). There is relatively little new research in this volume, but it will cause readers, new and experienced, to ask themselves about the morality of bombing of non-combatant targets, and perhaps by extension of war itself. Hansen does use many first hand accounts of what civilians on the ground experienced in raids against such centres as Hamburg and Dresden, to name the most controversial of Bomber Command's targets. He also does a good job of counterpoising these vignettes with the policy decisions, tactical debates and technical challenges faced by both the RAF and the USSTAF. While these qualities make the book worthy of a read there are several limitations which detract from it. First, the work seems to be a fairly obvious attack against Harris. Hansen occasionally admits to Harris's character strengths; however, the author by and large misses no opportunity to explicitly or implicitly criticize the head of Bomber Command as a commander who readily ignored both direction and argument that he shift the Command's targeting away from [End Page 999] apparently pointless and ruthless city busting. By comparison Hansen paints the leadership and rank and file of the USSTAF as white knights who had the means to hit militarily relevant targets with precision and who abhorred the rare occasions when directed to attack cities. Hansen in taking this approach has not done his homework, or so it seems. Sources consulted and used, according to the bibliography, are considerable, but he has missed or misread a number of key ones which would allow a different understanding of what really happened. A curious omission is that of the Canadian official history, The Crucible of War 1939-1945, which actually takes a critical view of Harris. As well, Hansen seems to be very selective in his use of two sources which point out that the USSTAF did do city bombing by policy and practice. Both Richard G. Davis in Bombing the European Axis Powers and Tami Davis Biddle in Rhetoric and Reality make clear and unequivocal reference to these circumstances. Davis cites primary sources and even shows that there were occasions where such sources were at the time doctored to avoid having to talk about area bombing. He also offers a discussion of the area bombing of Japanese cities, concluding that while Harris destroyed 60 German cities, Spaatz did the same in Japan—an issue which Hansen all but ignores. One other important omission from Hansen's bibliography is William Hays Parks's 1995 article, "'Precision' and 'Area' Bombing: Who Did Which and When?" (which Davis too neglects) which draws from extensive primary data to show that while the RAF bombed cities so too did the USSTAF. Adding to this curious and unbalanced treatment of the literature, the book contains a number of glaring errors of fact. Hansen claims for instance that the 1941 Butt report showed that two thirds of RAF bombers bombed more than 75 miles from their targets while in fact Butt said that aircraft were bombing outside of a five mile radius of the target (an area of 75 square miles). On another occasion Hansen refers to a raid of 11,000 aircraft while the figure was in fact 1100. As well he indicates that the Harris Papers are in the Churchill Archives when they are most definitely...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it