Dehousing

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Dehousing was not a word that appeared on any bomb casing or in any RAF briefing room before 1942. It was the name given to a cold calculation: that the most efficient way to break Germany was not to destroy its factories or kill its soldiers, but to demolish the homes of its civilians. On the 30th of March 1942, Professor Frederick Lindemann, Baron Cherwell, the British government's chief scientific adviser, put that calculation into a memorandum and handed it to Prime Minister Winston Churchill. What followed was one of the most contested strategic debates of the entire war. Who pushed for this campaign, and who pushed back? How did a single paper shape three years of bombing? And what did the evidence actually say?

• 2. The Cherwell Memorandum

  ›

  Baron Cherwell built his case on an unexpected foundation: the British experience of being bombed. Researchers had studied recent German raids on British cities, and Cherwell posed questions to them before drawing his conclusions. His argument was stark. Analysis of how the British public had responded to the Blitz showed that losing a home did more damage to civilian morale than losing a relative. From that premise, Cherwell reasoned that destroying roughly 30% of the housing stock in Germany's 58 largest cities would be the most effective use of RAF Bomber Command's aircraft. He believed the campaign could allow Britain to avoid a land invasion of Europe entirely. The memorandum was accepted by the Churchill War Cabinet, and the documentation that grew out of it became known as the dehousing paper.

• 3. A Bomber Force in Crisis

  ›

  The dehousing paper arrived at a moment of genuine weakness for Bomber Command. Since the winter of 1941-1942, the RAF had been operating at much reduced capacity, conserving its strength while waiting for four-engined heavy bombers and the GEE radio-navigational device to enter frontline service. A report delivered on the 18th of August 1941 by D. M. Bensusan-Butt, a member of the War Cabinet Secretariat, had already exposed the scale of the problem. Analysing aerial photographs from recent operations, Bensusan-Butt found that fewer than a third of sorties had placed aircraft within five miles of the target. When aircraft that failed to bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or navigation errors were counted in, the true figure dropped to around 5%. The bombing policy had already abandoned attempts at precision; the question was what to replace it with.

• 4. The Debate Inside Whitehall

  ›

  The dehousing paper did not land in a vacuum. The Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, and the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal, were openly relieved by it. Both had been defending the strategic bombing offensive against colleagues who argued that the resources poured into Bomber Command were draining the Army and the Royal Navy with little result. Portal had gone so far as to claim that a force of 4,000 aircraft could destroy every German city with a population above 100,000 and win the war within six months. The dehousing paper gave that argument a scientific gloss at a critical moment. Still, Portal and Sinclair each noted reservations about whether the targets could actually be met. Professor Patrick Blackett, the newly appointed civilian Director of Naval Operational Research, was far less measured: he wrote that the paper had overstated what bombing could achieve by 600%.

• 5. Tizard's Challenge

  ›

  Sir Henry Tizard was the principal advocate for cutting Bomber Command in favour of other priorities. His argument was precise: the only proven benefit of strategic bombing was that it forced Germany to divert resources to defending its own territory, and that same effect could be achieved with a far smaller and cheaper campaign. On the 15th of April, Tizard wrote directly to Cherwell, warning that the War Cabinet could reach the wrong decision if it relied on the paper's figures. He raised three specific objections: the bomber force would require 7,000 aircraft, not the 10,000 the paper assumed; the new navigational aids needed to reach German targets would not be ready before 1943; and no more than 25% of bombs could realistically be expected to land on target. Cherwell's reply was candid in a troubling way. He told Tizard the calculations were intended for the Prime Minister's benefit, not for rigorous statistical analysis, and that the discrepancy between the numbers and reality would not prevent catastrophic effects on Germany. C. P. Snow, writing later as Lord Snow, recorded that the dispute turned vitriolic, with Tizard being labelled a defeatist.

• 6. Singleton, Harris, and the Verdict

  ›

  To settle the argument, the Cabinet asked Mr. Justice Singleton, a High Court judge, to review the competing positions. His report was delivered on the 20th of May 1942. Singleton concluded that if the Soviet Union could hold Germany on land, twelve to eighteen months of intensified bombing would likely break German resistance by degrading war production and civilian morale. That conditional endorsement was enough. The strategic bombing campaign survived. Eight days before Singleton's inquiry was commissioned, on the 14th of February 1942, the area bombing directive had already been issued; eight days after that, Arthur "Bomber" Harris took up his post as Air Officer Commanding of Bomber Command. The debate was still raging when Harris arrived, but the institutional momentum was already set. A study published on the 8th of April by Professors Bernal and Zuckerman, based on their survey of Hull and Birmingham, found that German bombing had produced anxiety in the British population but no mass anti-social behaviour and, in their words, no measurable effect on the health of either town. That finding, which directly contradicted Cherwell's morale argument, had been published after the dehousing paper was already in Churchill's hands.