4 ms·

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 sen

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.

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.