4 ms·

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

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.
  - kouru225 3y ago
    The invasion of the Soviet Union was a losing tactic if, and only if, the Nazis had to fight on two fronts. The Allies had to attack the Nazis from the west in order to make them lose. That’s what they did by bombing. This isn’t a niche opinion. In the exact same documentary series as I first mentioned (World At War,) a Nazi military official argues that the Allied bombings were successful because they forced the Nazis to split their forces along two separate fronts. They were unable to divert their ammunition, air support, etc to Russia because of the bombings.
    - c_crank 3y ago
      The last strategic offensive the Nazis mounted in the Soviet Union was in 1943, which failed. The failure at Stalingrad occurred only months earlier. The Eastern Front at the time was already using 80-90% of Nazi material and manpower. I and most others doubt that utilizing the small remainder would have cinched it for them. >In the exact same documentary series as I first mentioned (World At War,) a Nazi military official argues that the Allied bombings were successful because they forced the Nazis to split their forces along two separate fronts. They were unable to divert their ammunition, air support, etc to Russia because of the bombings. It seems like this general forgot that the remaining Nazi forces were not solely defending against strategic bombings, but waging an active war in North Africa, and then Italy.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The war was driven by nazi ideology, not an actual rational assessment of reality. For example, there is no version of WWII that doesn't involve Hitler wanting to destroy communism by conquering the soviets, and even just that one thing basically means there was no real path to victory. Nazi ideology was not based in reality, which is why they started a war that they would inevitably lose. Hitler was playing map painting in a video game, not analyzing reality.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    >For example, there is no version of WWII that doesn't involve Hitler wanting to destroy communism by conquering the soviets, and even just that one thing basically means there was no real path to victory. It's easy to imagine an alternative WWII scenario where the local communist parties took over Germany and fought with the USSR. Stalin actually decided not to support the KPD during the pre war period, seeing them as a bigger threat than Hitler. Even if you think Communism is great, there can only be one Communism to rule them all..
    - hackandthink 3y ago
      >Stalin actually decided not to support the KPD during the pre war period, seeing them as a bigger threat than Hitler This does not make sense. Did you mean SPD (instead of KPD)? Comintern politics were confused, but I think they changed to a popular front strategy after Hitler's "coronation" (which they should have done many years earlier). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front#Comintern_policy:_1934%E2%80%931939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front#Comintern_policy...
      - c_crank 3y ago
        The SPD, right. My mistake.

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.
- kouru225 3y ago
  The invasion of the Soviet Union was a losing tactic if, and only if, the Nazis had to fight on two fronts. The Allies had to attack the Nazis from the west in order to make them lose. That’s what they did by bombing. This isn’t a niche opinion. In the exact same documentary series as I first mentioned (World At War,) a Nazi military official argues that the Allied bombings were successful because they forced the Nazis to split their forces along two separate fronts. They were unable to divert their ammunition, air support, etc to Russia because of the bombings.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    The last strategic offensive the Nazis mounted in the Soviet Union was in 1943, which failed. The failure at Stalingrad occurred only months earlier. The Eastern Front at the time was already using 80-90% of Nazi material and manpower. I and most others doubt that utilizing the small remainder would have cinched it for them. >In the exact same documentary series as I first mentioned (World At War,) a Nazi military official argues that the Allied bombings were successful because they forced the Nazis to split their forces along two separate fronts. They were unable to divert their ammunition, air support, etc to Russia because of the bombings. It seems like this general forgot that the remaining Nazi forces were not solely defending against strategic bombings, but waging an active war in North Africa, and then Italy.
mrguyorama 3y ago
The war was driven by nazi ideology, not an actual rational assessment of reality. For example, there is no version of WWII that doesn't involve Hitler wanting to destroy communism by conquering the soviets, and even just that one thing basically means there was no real path to victory. Nazi ideology was not based in reality, which is why they started a war that they would inevitably lose. Hitler was playing map painting in a video game, not analyzing reality.
- c_crank 3y ago
  >For example, there is no version of WWII that doesn't involve Hitler wanting to destroy communism by conquering the soviets, and even just that one thing basically means there was no real path to victory. It's easy to imagine an alternative WWII scenario where the local communist parties took over Germany and fought with the USSR. Stalin actually decided not to support the KPD during the pre war period, seeing them as a bigger threat than Hitler. Even if you think Communism is great, there can only be one Communism to rule them all..
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    >Stalin actually decided not to support the KPD during the pre war period, seeing them as a bigger threat than Hitler This does not make sense. Did you mean SPD (instead of KPD)? Comintern politics were confused, but I think they changed to a popular front strategy after Hitler's "coronation" (which they should have done many years earlier). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front#Comintern_policy:_1934%E2%80%931939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front#Comintern_policy...
    - c_crank 3y ago
      The SPD, right. My mistake.