Posted on 08/01/2016 5:21:21 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
The bombing campaign in Europe brought the Luftwaffe out in the open. I made them fight. And we beat them once they fully engaged.
P.J. O’Rourke lived in Brattleboro, VT, at one point. It is fascinating how much *nothing* there still is in New England. Some of my higher-up-the-social-ladder relatives live in great semi-rural comfort in New York and Maine, retiring to somewhere less affected by snow during the relevant months.
The statistics on bomb-targeting (in)accuracy from WW2 just boggle the mind.
Mr. Strong has a very fine turn of phrase in his descriptions. Reminds me of Anoreth’s foreign travel reports.
More than that, it kept a huge percentage of the German war effort off the Eastern Front, staying at home to defend against Western bombers.
Manpower, aircraft, the German world-class 88 mm anti-air & tank guns all kept away from Soviet forces.
Of course Stalin didn't believe it when Churchill promised him that bombing really was the "Second Front" he wanted, but post-war studies show bombing was a major factor helping Soviets.
Yes, even with Americans bombing in daylight with the Norden bombsight, accuracy was pretty bad.
Kirk was caught in an attack and not only refused to die but destroyed the killing machines. He explained that war was supposed to be terrible, which is why people try so hard to make and maintain peace.
This being Star Trek at the end of the episode the two peoples open peace negotiations instead of the more probable result that they go back to fighting for real.
“Pretty bad” is an understatement. I would call it, “You can’t believe how bad!” However, at the time, it was truly the best they could do.
I think there are arguments to be made on the fringes, like, “Did Dresden accomplish *anything*?” but regarding the whole strategic bombing campaign, it’s a lot more clear. I won’t say categorically that the war couldn’t have been won without it, but most of the evidence points that way.
That’s so “Star Trek”: to bring up very important and complicated human dilemmas, explore them in a philosophically sophisticated way ... and then provide an impossibly simple, feel-good resolution.
I reluctantly agree. My opinion is the American daylight bombing campaign cost more in lives and material than it harmed the German war effort, until we deployed the P-51 model that could escort the bombers to and from the targets.
I have to admit the daylight campaign was primarily responsible for the fact that in June 1944 the Allies had air supremacy over Northern France, but it came at a terrible cost.
If we learned anything in 7-8 years of rehashing WW2, it was the “terrible cost.” A cost that makes the Civil War look like nothing, in comparison, except that it was the end of the world for so many.
I have really enjoyed preparing his entries for posting. I have gotten through September. He has more than once had me cracking up in the midst of a transcription or scan prep. I have decided to acquire the complete 4 volume set of his diaries as soon as there is room on my Visa card. I don't have much going on in 1857-58 and my abridged version of the Strong diaries doesn't include those years. Okay, the Lincoln-Douglas debates are in '58, but not until August.
WWI was the real terrible cost. WWII was just piling on.
Well, true, especially in proportion to populations.
Whopper of a cost! It’s a shame there’s not an online or e-book version!
In all such discussions -- i.e., strategic bombing, A-bombs, helping the Soviets, etc. -- the answer is always: of course the war could have been won without them, but at a vastly higher cost in American soldiers' lives.
Remember, of all the major WWII combatants, the US lost the fewest lives, in some cases by orders of magnitude.
For example, we lost circa 400,000 dead, the Germans 7 million, Soviets 27 million.
So, yes, we could have won the war without all those things, but how many more millions of young Americans would die?
The best case scenario would have been, allowing Hitler to take Moscow, which most likely would have led to a Coup against Stalin and perhaps the Russians abandoning Communism in order to unite the people against the Germans.
I disagree. I think there are many ways the war could have been lost. With hindsight, it's easy to tell ourselves, that we would have won no matter what, some way ... but to get real, we might not have.
Hitler could have taken Moscow, had that been his goal.
But it wasn't, rather he diverted major forces from Moscow to encircle Soviet armies around Kiev, and also to attack Leningrad.
Further, Stalin was fully prepared to abandon Moscow if the need arose, but not before, and of course, it never really did.
That's because, in addition to his finest general, Gen. Georgy Zhukov, Stalin had another secret general, Gen. Winter.
Stalin's Gen. Winter was vastly smarter than the Germans' Corporal in Chief, Hitler, and so even more than to Emperor Napoleon before him, Moscow to Corporal Hitler proved, well, elusive.
Our enemies then, just as today, knew Americans abhor the loss of blood, especially our own.
Then as now they knew that if they could drag the war out long enough to kill enough Americans, we will eventually grow war-weary and give up the fight, regardless of how victorious we may have been.
So it was the absolute strategic genius of American leaders like President Roosevelt to maximize the damage we did to our enemies, while minimizing our own loss of lives.
Had they been less resourceful, the war could have ended quite differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.