5 ms·

>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 bomb

>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
      The allies were also investing their own resources into the bombing fleets. In the economy of war, an extra tank or artillery gun or fighter bomber produced far more valuable and clear results than another strategic bomber.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        The allies could and did massively outproduce Germany anyway. Wasn't getting the tanks for France and Belgium the main bottleneck throughout most of 1944? So if that equipment was to be sent to Russia investing those resources into (supposedly) less effective bombers might have been the more pragmatic long-term option (at the horrible cost of additional Russian lives).
        c_crank 3y ago
        The war was fought the way it was with the goal of preserving American lives compared to Russian ones. If the Allies wanted to preserve Russian lives, the best way of doing so would have been to do the Normandy landings years earlier, instead of dragging their feet in Italy and the North African front. The primary motivator for them eventually invading France was to preserve France and a fraction of Germany from being under Soviet control.
myk9001 3y ago
> [...] obviously visible by how the German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies. It's not that obvious to me. Of course they kept shooting. It's hard to imagine a scale of destruction necessary to bring an industralized country's economy to a full halt. Still, deaths mean decreased workforce which is already strained by the military draft. While, of course, they repaired what they could, (re)building a factory to its full potential takes years and substansial workforce. As to Vietnam/Afganistan, withholding moral judgment on their invasion in the first place, from what very little I know about these historical events, the US operations accomplished their military goals there. They later withdrew not due to Vietcong/Taliban's efforts, but as a result of internal political/societal processes in the US itself.
- c_crank 3y ago
  >Still, deaths mean decreased workforce which is already strained by the military draft. This imagines a strain on the workforce that never really existed. Industrial countries can and have staffed factories and repair crews with women and the infirm. >As to Vietnam/Afganistan, withholding moral judgment on their invasion in the first place, from what very little I know about these historical events, the US operations accomplished their military goals there. Part of their military goals were destruction of the enemy force via sustained bombing campaigns. These goals were never achieved and instead abandoned.
  - myk9001 3y ago
    OK, after reading your and other people's comments explaining ineffectivnes of the bombings, I think you're right, the strategic bombings were ineffective from the military standpoint, wasted resources that could've been put to a more effective use, and inflicted unnecessary suffering on civilians. Point taken. Thank you for engaging in the conversation.
    - fsckboy 3y ago
      except, nobody knew till the end of the war what would be effective and what would not. That entire class of aircraft was invented during the war and the tactics were just being developed. And after the war, new classes of aircraft were developed. The idea that universally useful conclusions can be drawn is what is incorrect.

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
    The allies were also investing their own resources into the bombing fleets. In the economy of war, an extra tank or artillery gun or fighter bomber produced far more valuable and clear results than another strategic bomber.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      The allies could and did massively outproduce Germany anyway. Wasn't getting the tanks for France and Belgium the main bottleneck throughout most of 1944? So if that equipment was to be sent to Russia investing those resources into (supposedly) less effective bombers might have been the more pragmatic long-term option (at the horrible cost of additional Russian lives).
      - c_crank 3y ago
        The war was fought the way it was with the goal of preserving American lives compared to Russian ones. If the Allies wanted to preserve Russian lives, the best way of doing so would have been to do the Normandy landings years earlier, instead of dragging their feet in Italy and the North African front. The primary motivator for them eventually invading France was to preserve France and a fraction of Germany from being under Soviet control.

myk9001 3y ago

> [...] obviously visible by how the German armies kept shooting until they were eliminated by other shooting armies. It's not that obvious to me. Of course they kept shooting. It's hard to imagine a scale of destruction necessary to bring an industralized country's economy to a full halt. Still, deaths mean decreased workforce which is already strained by the military draft. While, of course, they repaired what they could, (re)building a factory to its full potential takes years and substansial workforce. As to Vietnam/Afganistan, withholding moral judgment on their invasion in the first place, from what very little I know about these historical events, the US operations accomplished their military goals there. They later withdrew not due to Vietcong/Taliban's efforts, but as a result of internal political/societal processes in the US itself.

c_crank 3y ago
>Still, deaths mean decreased workforce which is already strained by the military draft. This imagines a strain on the workforce that never really existed. Industrial countries can and have staffed factories and repair crews with women and the infirm. >As to Vietnam/Afganistan, withholding moral judgment on their invasion in the first place, from what very little I know about these historical events, the US operations accomplished their military goals there. Part of their military goals were destruction of the enemy force via sustained bombing campaigns. These goals were never achieved and instead abandoned.
- myk9001 3y ago
  OK, after reading your and other people's comments explaining ineffectivnes of the bombings, I think you're right, the strategic bombings were ineffective from the military standpoint, wasted resources that could've been put to a more effective use, and inflicted unnecessary suffering on civilians. Point taken. Thank you for engaging in the conversation.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    except, nobody knew till the end of the war what would be effective and what would not. That entire class of aircraft was invented during the war and the tactics were just being developed. And after the war, new classes of aircraft were developed. The idea that universally useful conclusions can be drawn is what is incorrect.