3 ms·

No, the allies didn't learn. The British knew very well that moral was not negatively affected by the Blitz, nor was industry. The targeted workers living quart

by hef19898 3y ago

No, the allies didn't learn. The British knew very well that moral was not negatively affected by the Blitz, nor was industry. The targeted workers living quarters and civilians regardless. And no amounz of data confirming that these bombings had no real impact on German production rates, nor moral (in fact, POWs from Normandy confirmed that they fought to defend Germany from allied bombing), and still contimued. Heck, the leveled Caen in France in order to destroy three bridges. Caen was leveled, thousands killed. And the bridges still intact.

woodruffw 3y ago
> The British knew very well that moral was not negatively affected by the Blitz, nor was industry. My comment addresses this: the German aerial strategy didn't obtain its stated goals (demoralization and destruction of the British industrial base), and the Allied aerial counteroffensive arguably learned from that. For all of its excesses (and they were gross, violent excesses), the Allied aerial offensive was strategically sound: the German industrial base collapsed not because it was entirely flattened by bombings, but because of strategic attacks on its foundations (primarily oil[1]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
- hef19898 3y ago
  Oh, the campaign flanking the invasion of France in 1944 (!), the only time strategic bombing actually did something meaningful. Up to that point, not so much. Funny so, that you fight against reports from the RAF and USAAF confirming that strategic bombing didn't have the intended effect for all the previous years of the war. That attitude is getting a trend online so, first it was Wehraboos glamorizing German tanks and mechanized warfare, now it is people doing the same thing with allied bombing and bombers. Both are wrong by the way.

woodruffw 3y ago

> The British knew very well that moral was not negatively affected by the Blitz, nor was industry. My comment addresses this: the German aerial strategy didn't obtain its stated goals (demoralization and destruction of the British industrial base), and the Allied aerial counteroffensive arguably learned from that. For all of its excesses (and they were gross, violent excesses), the Allied aerial offensive was strategically sound: the German industrial base collapsed not because it was entirely flattened by bombings, but because of strategic attacks on its foundations (primarily oil[1]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II

hef19898 3y ago
Oh, the campaign flanking the invasion of France in 1944 (!), the only time strategic bombing actually did something meaningful. Up to that point, not so much. Funny so, that you fight against reports from the RAF and USAAF confirming that strategic bombing didn't have the intended effect for all the previous years of the war. That attitude is getting a trend online so, first it was Wehraboos glamorizing German tanks and mechanized warfare, now it is people doing the same thing with allied bombing and bombers. Both are wrong by the way.