10 ms·

>What other options were there for the Allies? We know that what actually ended the war was invading the territory that was held, not strategic bombing. Not th

>What other options were there for the Allies? We know that what actually ended the war was invading the territory that was held, not strategic bombing. Not that it really matters, since the German state was so thoroughly interrogated for the war that they aren't going to complain, but the Allied bombing campaign bears much similarity to the Vietnam bombing campaign in that it was killing stuff for the stake of killing stuff with little tactical or strategic advantage.

Aloha 3y ago
How much longer would the war have lasted without the strategic bombing? Would those civilians have died anyhow had the germans had the military materiel to hold each city longer, which would have required fighting block by block - Imagine the Battle of Berlin but on a continental scale.
- c_crank 3y ago
  >How much longer would the war have lasted without the strategic bombing? Probably just as long. The reason the American forces had such an easy time advancing into France once they had landed is because most of the German forces were on the Eastern front, where the USSR had to do the extremely bloody fighting all the way to Berlin anyway.
  - myk9001 3y ago
    Your comment seems to imply the German forces on the Eastern front weren't reliant on the German industrial capacity targeted by the Allied bombings. Had the Germany retained said industrial capacity, wouldn't the USSR have to fight even bloodier fighting for longer? How do we know whether they would prevail or loose eventually in this alternative history scenario? Could you elaborate on how you logically arrive at such a conclusion?
    - c_crank 3y ago
      >Your comment seems to imply the German forces on the Eastern front weren't reliant on the German industrial capacity targeted by the Allied bombings. The bombings did little to disrupt said industry. Though there were deaths and damage, it was repaired and the machines kept working. Actual severe disruptions to the German war economy occurred when they lost access to raw materials, such as the Romanian oil fields. There are studies to this effect, but it is more obviously visible by how the German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies. Strategic bombing also failed to eliminate the Chinese/North Koreans, the Vietcong, the Taliban...
      - qwytw 3y ago
        > German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies What makes you think they wouldn't have been able to continue shooting for much longer? > eliminate the Chinese/North Koreans Wasn't North Korea pretty much entirely defeated by the time China interfered (and Chinese territory wasn't bombed)? > Vietnam The strategic bombing campaign in North Vietnam wasn't that successful and also quite costly and US couldn't follow it up with a ground invasion.
        c_crank 3y ago
        Production of arms unaffected by loss of raw materials continued throughout the bombings. The classic example often used is ball bearings, whose production increased up until 1945.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Germany also began fully mobilizing it's economy for war production between mid 1943 and 44 so I'm not sure it's that straightforward to measure. You might be right but I don't think we can handwave the possibility that Germany would have been able to produce more military materiel without if their population centers, infrastructure and factories were left completely undamaged.
        c_crank 3y ago
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Probably just as long How did you come to this conclusion? I don't know whether it could be justified or not but I don't see how one can just outright say the strategic bombing did not significantly damage German infrastructure, manufacturing capacity, morale and also require Germany to invest a lot of resources and manpower into their airforce and ground defenses.
    - c_crank 3y ago
      Most of their resources were still being sent to the Eastern front during the entire extent of it existing. Most significant damage to German fighting capabilities came from tactical strikes by the US airforce during and after the Normandy landings - taking out specific railways and airfields rather than factories.
- nekitamo 3y ago
  Numerous historians have shown that strategic bombing was counterproductive for three reasons: 1) It rallied civilian morale to side with the government. People were aggrieved that they were being bombed, and it stiffened their resistance and motivated them to work harder towards the war effort. 2) Despite strategic bombing targeting factories and industrial infrastructure, they only caused superficial damage. The damaged factories were quickly brought back online, and the newly motivated workers significantly increased their output. In some books they cited increases of output in bombed German factories of above 100% towards the end of the war. 3) Strategic bombers are extremely costly to produce and operate. Casualties on strategic bombing missions in the beginning were incredibly high, with some air wings suffering ~50% personnel loss during an air campaign. All of this loss resulted in no changed on the battlefield, and negligible or even counter-productive effects on enemy industrial production. In summary, strategic bombing of civilian targets and cities was a colossal waste of time, resources, and manpower. All of those things could have been redirected elsewhere to help end the war earlier. https://malwarwickonbooks.com/strategic-bombing-in-wwii/ https://malwarwickonbooks.com/strategic-bombing-in-wwii/ --- While we're on the topic, one place where strategic bombing was successful is targeting Romanian and German oil refineries. The loss in German oil production directly lead to the war ending earlier, and the hamstringing of German logistics and consequently military operations. https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/Article/1887774/wwii-allied-oil-plan-devastates-german-pol-production/ https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/Article/1887774/wwii... As Rommel would say: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. This experience makes me think that even though strategic bombing was wasteful in WW2, it still has a place in modern military doctrine. A large strategic bombing fleet can act as a deterrent, and a way to quickly subdue less sophisticated opponents by bombing all their critical infrastructure back into the stone age. It should also be noted however that large scale American strategic bombing during the Vietnam conflict was largely unsuccessful.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  It’s a slight tangent, but the battle of Berlin was an absolute humanitarian disaster. The number of deaths was incredible. The US suffered approximately 400,000 dead in the war, and the UK (including colonies) was a similar number. The final assault on Berlin cost 80,000 Russian lives and 100,000 German. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:text=Civilian%20deaths%20totaled%2050–55,5%20million%20prisoners%20of%20war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:t....
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> We know that what actually ended the war was invading the territory that was held, not strategic bombing. Against Germany, I agree with you. Against Japan, not so much.
- c_crank 3y ago
  Throwing nukes into the equation does change things. It was also well time with the Soviet Union entering the war, which is often unmentioned.
kouru225 3y ago
There's an interview in World At War with a German official that talks about this exact bombing. He says that if the Allies had done this one or twice more, the Nazis would've surrendered. The Nazis main strength was their overwhelming belief that they were destine to easily succeed. It wasn't until this bombing and their failed invasion of Stalingrad that this narrative began to unravel and that was also the beginning of the end of the war.
- c_crank 3y ago
  In reality, the Nazis didn't surrender until after Berlin was taken and all but a few pockets of resistance were eliminated. The bombings may have let them know things were turning around, but they didn't drop their guns.
  - kouru225 3y ago
    What’s your point? Are you arguing that a country only surrenders when every single soldier drops their guns? I’m confused as to what you’re getting at. The war was basically over before anyone reached Berlin. The specifics don’t really matter.
    - c_crank 3y ago
      The war was over when soldiers surrendered and stopped shooting. The course of the war was predictable when Germany invaded the USSR. If the allies had done no strategic bombing at all, both of these things would still be true.
      - kouru225 3y ago
        By this logic, the war was over before it even started so why fight?
        c_crank 3y ago
        Why does man fight in losing wars? If he gives up too easily, he might lose fights he actually had a chance of winning. Or perhaps he does it to satisfy a sense of honor he and his community hold. That it is better to die fighting than to live running. Perhaps he thinks that the more viciously he fights, the less energy his foe will have to destroy his home and his family when the fighting ends. Or perhaps he does it because he is being paid to fight to the end. But if the goal of fighting is to win, then it seems like the heavy bomber has done little to aid that goal.

Aloha 3y ago

How much longer would the war have lasted without the strategic bombing? Would those civilians have died anyhow had the germans had the military materiel to hold each city longer, which would have required fighting block by block - Imagine the Battle of Berlin but on a continental scale.

c_crank 3y ago
>How much longer would the war have lasted without the strategic bombing? Probably just as long. The reason the American forces had such an easy time advancing into France once they had landed is because most of the German forces were on the Eastern front, where the USSR had to do the extremely bloody fighting all the way to Berlin anyway.
- myk9001 3y ago
  Your comment seems to imply the German forces on the Eastern front weren't reliant on the German industrial capacity targeted by the Allied bombings. Had the Germany retained said industrial capacity, wouldn't the USSR have to fight even bloodier fighting for longer? How do we know whether they would prevail or loose eventually in this alternative history scenario? Could you elaborate on how you logically arrive at such a conclusion?
  - c_crank 3y ago
    >Your comment seems to imply the German forces on the Eastern front weren't reliant on the German industrial capacity targeted by the Allied bombings. The bombings did little to disrupt said industry. Though there were deaths and damage, it was repaired and the machines kept working. Actual severe disruptions to the German war economy occurred when they lost access to raw materials, such as the Romanian oil fields. There are studies to this effect, but it is more obviously visible by how the German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies. Strategic bombing also failed to eliminate the Chinese/North Koreans, the Vietcong, the Taliban...
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies What makes you think they wouldn't have been able to continue shooting for much longer? > eliminate the Chinese/North Koreans Wasn't North Korea pretty much entirely defeated by the time China interfered (and Chinese territory wasn't bombed)? > Vietnam The strategic bombing campaign in North Vietnam wasn't that successful and also quite costly and US couldn't follow it up with a ground invasion.
      - c_crank 3y ago
        Production of arms unaffected by loss of raw materials continued throughout the bombings. The classic example often used is ball bearings, whose production increased up until 1945.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Germany also began fully mobilizing it's economy for war production between mid 1943 and 44 so I'm not sure it's that straightforward to measure. You might be right but I don't think we can handwave the possibility that Germany would have been able to produce more military materiel without if their population centers, infrastructure and factories were left completely undamaged.
        c_crank 3y ago
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Probably just as long How did you come to this conclusion? I don't know whether it could be justified or not but I don't see how one can just outright say the strategic bombing did not significantly damage German infrastructure, manufacturing capacity, morale and also require Germany to invest a lot of resources and manpower into their airforce and ground defenses.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    Most of their resources were still being sent to the Eastern front during the entire extent of it existing. Most significant damage to German fighting capabilities came from tactical strikes by the US airforce during and after the Normandy landings - taking out specific railways and airfields rather than factories.
nekitamo 3y ago
Numerous historians have shown that strategic bombing was counterproductive for three reasons: 1) It rallied civilian morale to side with the government. People were aggrieved that they were being bombed, and it stiffened their resistance and motivated them to work harder towards the war effort. 2) Despite strategic bombing targeting factories and industrial infrastructure, they only caused superficial damage. The damaged factories were quickly brought back online, and the newly motivated workers significantly increased their output. In some books they cited increases of output in bombed German factories of above 100% towards the end of the war. 3) Strategic bombers are extremely costly to produce and operate. Casualties on strategic bombing missions in the beginning were incredibly high, with some air wings suffering ~50% personnel loss during an air campaign. All of this loss resulted in no changed on the battlefield, and negligible or even counter-productive effects on enemy industrial production. In summary, strategic bombing of civilian targets and cities was a colossal waste of time, resources, and manpower. All of those things could have been redirected elsewhere to help end the war earlier. https://malwarwickonbooks.com/strategic-bombing-in-wwii/ https://malwarwickonbooks.com/strategic-bombing-in-wwii/ --- While we're on the topic, one place where strategic bombing was successful is targeting Romanian and German oil refineries. The loss in German oil production directly lead to the war ending earlier, and the hamstringing of German logistics and consequently military operations. https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/Article/1887774/wwii-allied-oil-plan-devastates-german-pol-production/ https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/Article/1887774/wwii... As Rommel would say: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. This experience makes me think that even though strategic bombing was wasteful in WW2, it still has a place in modern military doctrine. A large strategic bombing fleet can act as a deterrent, and a way to quickly subdue less sophisticated opponents by bombing all their critical infrastructure back into the stone age. It should also be noted however that large scale American strategic bombing during the Vietnam conflict was largely unsuccessful.
lostlogin 3y ago
It’s a slight tangent, but the battle of Berlin was an absolute humanitarian disaster. The number of deaths was incredible. The US suffered approximately 400,000 dead in the war, and the UK (including colonies) was a similar number. The final assault on Berlin cost 80,000 Russian lives and 100,000 German. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:text=Civilian%20deaths%20totaled%2050–55,5%20million%20prisoners%20of%20war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:t....

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

> We know that what actually ended the war was invading the territory that was held, not strategic bombing. Against Germany, I agree with you. Against Japan, not so much.

c_crank 3y ago
Throwing nukes into the equation does change things. It was also well time with the Soviet Union entering the war, which is often unmentioned.

kouru225 3y ago

There's an interview in World At War with a German official that talks about this exact bombing. He says that if the Allies had done this one or twice more, the Nazis would've surrendered. The Nazis main strength was their overwhelming belief that they were destine to easily succeed. It wasn't until this bombing and their failed invasion of Stalingrad that this narrative began to unravel and that was also the beginning of the end of the war.

c_crank 3y ago
In reality, the Nazis didn't surrender until after Berlin was taken and all but a few pockets of resistance were eliminated. The bombings may have let them know things were turning around, but they didn't drop their guns.
- kouru225 3y ago
  What’s your point? Are you arguing that a country only surrenders when every single soldier drops their guns? I’m confused as to what you’re getting at. The war was basically over before anyone reached Berlin. The specifics don’t really matter.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    The war was over when soldiers surrendered and stopped shooting. The course of the war was predictable when Germany invaded the USSR. If the allies had done no strategic bombing at all, both of these things would still be true.
    - kouru225 3y ago
      By this logic, the war was over before it even started so why fight?
      - c_crank 3y ago
        Why does man fight in losing wars? If he gives up too easily, he might lose fights he actually had a chance of winning. Or perhaps he does it to satisfy a sense of honor he and his community hold. That it is better to die fighting than to live running. Perhaps he thinks that the more viciously he fights, the less energy his foe will have to destroy his home and his family when the fighting ends. Or perhaps he does it because he is being paid to fight to the end. But if the goal of fighting is to win, then it seems like the heavy bomber has done little to aid that goal.