2 ms·
> 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'
by 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 agoOh, 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.