3 ms·
Strategic bombing did not work out anywhere near as well as its proponents had expected. I'm not certain that it can be described as a complete failure. I can
by curtis 10y ago
Strategic bombing did not work out anywhere near as well as its proponents had expected. I'm not certain that it can be described as a complete failure. I can't find a really good citation right now, but it is my understanding that the Allied attacks on Germany's synthetic fuel industry starting in September 1944 were extremely effective.
The closest quick citation I can find is the Wikipedia article "Oil campaign of World War II" [1]. In particular note the quotes from German leaders in the section "Opinions on outcome". (These quotes don't appear to be specific to the attacks against the synthetic fuel plants, though.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
- smacktoward 10y agoThe most effective Allied bombing attacks were definitely those on the German transportation network -- both fuel sources like oil, and other components like rail and road links. These played a significant role in disrupting German movement on the ground, which in turn contributed to their inability to turn back Allied offensives from D-Day forward. So it's correct to say that the strategic bombing forces made an important contribution to the final victory. The problem is that strategic bombing theorists had been promising something much bigger than just contributing one part of a combined-arms victory; they had been promising that strategic bombing could win the war by itself. And, while it was eventually realized that these promises were over-sold, an enormous number of lives both among Allied aircrews and German civilians on the ground were thrown away in fruitless efforts to prove them.