The Effectiveness of Allied Bombing during WWII and was it Justified?

[Stavroforos]

The fact that Britain was constantly bombing Germany really helped? It helped absolutely no one anywhere, not the Brits, not the Russians, not anyone else. Russia knocked out the Germans out of the war, and while they may have been part of the Allies which fought against Germany, they contributed more than any other nation by a large extent.

I don't see how not invading and conquering more lands is screwing up. I mean, the United States hasn't conquered any sizable land since what, the Spanish-American War? I would hardly call America militarily unsuccessful because of this though. Your standards are just bad.

Moved all posts relating to the subject of Allied Bombing during WWII from here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?302559-Most-militarily-successful-nation/page17

[knight of meh]

The fact that Britain was constantly bombing Germany really helped? It helped absolutely no one anywhere, not the Brits, not the Russians, not anyone else. Russia knocked out the Germans out of the war, and while they may have been part of the Allies which fought against Germany, they contributed more than any other nation by a large extent.

so supplies didn't help a second front that drew allot of the reichs strength didn't help ? the battle for north Africa , the blockades any of this ringing a bell at all?

it's like you know a bit about operation barbarossa and deduce everything from there .. not a valid opinion I'm afraid ..

contributing the most is only relevant if the other contributions are negligible

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Britain was savagely hurting German industry (and civilians). Not to mention that the Germans needed to keep a third to half of their air force for home defense against the British, meaning that the Germans had only half of their air power to combat the Soviets, this was absolutely crucial to all operations on the Eastern front.

Knowing what to conquer and invade is half the battle. The Russians did all sorts of things from Europe to the Pacific and made themselves overstretched. I actually can't figure out what was Russia's obsession with the Caucasus in late 1700s and early 1800s. Other than perhaps freeing up space for the Black and Caspian seas but given how India was everyone's goal (even Russia's goal) then why not get a head start in Central Asia and make your way there? Russia had the benefit of being the only European power that could walk to India. Plus if Russia can do that then that would completely negate the need for a Black Sea fleet which Russia was struggling to keep intact. Basically bypassing Central Asia is the same as bypassing the Dardanelles, problem solved Russia.

[King_Porus]

The fact that Britain was constantly bombing Germany really helped? It helped absolutely no one anywhere, not the Brits, not the Russians, not anyone else. Russia knocked out the Germans out of the war, and while they may have been part of the Allies which fought against Germany, they contributed more than any other nation by a large extent.

lol? You really think the USAF and RAF bombing runs against the German industrial districts was useless? I don't think you really understand war if you don't think crippling German industry, and therefore their war machine, didn't help Russia and the Allies beat Germany back more easily. That's not even mentioning the value of maintaining air superiority or damaging German morale.

[Nikitn]

Uhm, except the German war industry wasn't crippled by the bombings. As a matter of fact, the allies were unable to stop the huge increase in industrial efficiency that resulted from the German mobilization of its industry in 43 and 44.

Indeed, the bombing campaigns were only effective for killing civilians until the allies started to carpet-bomb rail-road centres in 45.

I really don't understand how you can deny that the Soviet contributions were by far the decsivie ones... Around 90% of the European axis casualties were suffered in the eastern front alone.

[Stavroforos]

lol? You really think the USAF and RAF bombing runs against the German industrial districts was useless? I don't think you really understand war if you don't think crippling German industry, and therefore their war machine, didn't help Russia and the Allies beat Germany back more easily. That's not even mentioning the value of maintaining air superiority or damaging German morale.

I'll simply answer you because it seems all of you basically share the same opinion.

The RAF wasn't bombing German industry, its policy instead was that of murdering German civilians, and they were very successful at this. The USAF policy of bombing German industry was largely ineffective at what it aimed to do because German industrial output actually increased while they were being bombed by the USAF. What the Americans did manage to do was destroy the Luftwaffe almost on their own, which was basically the most crucial contribution that was made. There was also the bombing of German oil and gas which was effective but not on a wide enough scale until late 1944, by which point the Red Army was going through Romania anyway.

Honestly, this debate comes up every so often here, because people from the West think that if I don't say it was an equal contribution that I'm somehow dishonoring someone who fought there or some other lame excuse for not debating. The Western nations played a major role in defeating the Germans, but the Soviets played a much bigger one.

[King_Porus]

Uhm, except the German war industry wasn't crippled by the bombings. As a matter of fact, the allies were unable to stop the huge increase in industrial efficiency that resulted from the German mobilization of its industry in 43 and 44.

Indeed, the bombing campaigns were only effective for killing civilians until the allies started to carpet-bomb rail-road centres in 45.

Destroying rail-road centres and wrecking cities does not help our side win? I was unaware. I was also unaware that the destruction of roads, factories, and power plants didn't help the war effort.

I'll simply answer you because it seems all of you basically share the same opinion.

The RAF wasn't bombing German industry, its policy instead was that of murdering German civilians, and they were very successful at this. The USAF policy of bombing German industry was largely ineffective at what it aimed to do because German industrial output actually increased while they were being bombed by the USAF. What the Americans did manage to do was destroy the Luftwaffe almost on their own, which was basically the most crucial contribution that was made. There was also the bombing of German oil and gas which was effective but not on a wide enough scale until late 1944, by which point the Red Army was going through Romania anyway.

Honestly, this debate comes up every so often here, because people from the West think that if I don't say it was an equal contribution that I'm somehow dishonoring someone who fought there or some other lame excuse for not debating. The Western nations played a major role in defeating the Germans, but the Soviets played a much bigger one.

I never said that the Soviets didn't contribute more to the war than the Western allies, in fact I have no idea where you took that from (Lord Nobunaga?).

I'm simply saying that the RAF/USAF bombings did in fact cripple Germany's ability to fight back by destroying roads, crushing the morale of the German people (by killing them and destroying their cities).
The bold part of your post is what I find the funniest. How is destroying the Luftwaffe not crucial enough for you? That way the Reds didn't have to deal with German aircraft. And I believe you mean the Americans and the Commonwealth. The RAF/RCAF/Polish managed to badly cripple the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, so much so that the Allies had complete air superiority on D-Day.

The bombings were a necessary evil, by the end of the war the Germans didn't have the morale maintain a resistance as Hitler had planned. Why? Their towns were in ruin, their houses destroyed, and their neighbours blown up. Only trouble was the clean-up afterwards.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I'm simply saying that the RAF/USAF bombings did in fact cripple Germany's ability to fight back by destroying roads, crushing the morale of the German people (by killing them and destroying their cities).

How did they crush the morale of the German people who were still fighting fiercely in '45, even though it was more obvious the war was lost, than it was for the Japanese, whose mainland hadn't seen an American boot on it?

[Diocle]

How did they crush the morale of the German people who were still fighting fiercely in '45, even though it was more obvious the war was lost, than it was for the Japanese, whose mainland hadn't seen an American boot on it?

Well, try you to live 12 years under the rule of beasts like Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler & C., and try to figure out what happened to the people showing low morale .....

[Stavroforos]

[QUOTE=King_Porus;13524819]

I'm simply saying that the RAF/USAF bombings did in fact cripple Germany's ability to fight back by destroying roads, crushing the morale of the German people (by killing them and destroying their cities).

So, German morale was so destroyed that they kept on fighting until literally every last inch of Berlin had been conquered and the Fuhrer had been killed. The morale of the German people wasn't crushed, which is incidentally why the strategic bombing campaigns were such a failure. Pre-war strategists had thought that they would be able to bring a nation to its knees simply through strategic bombing, and WWII proved them dead wrong.

The bold part of your post is what I find the funniest. How is destroying the Luftwaffe not crucial enough for you? That way the Reds didn't have to deal with German aircraft.

The Reds already had air superiority over the Eastern Front when the Axis began relocating their squadrons to German and the West to deal with the Allied bombings.

And I believe you mean the Americans and the Commonwealth. The RAF/RCAF/Polish managed to badly cripple the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, so much so that the Allies had complete air superiority on D-Day.

I don't mean that, because that is simply wrong. The defeat at the Battle of Britain was a setback for the Germans, but by no means was the Luftwaffe crippled in anything but the short term. By the time the Allies were flying raids over Germany in 1943, the Luftwaffe was larger than it was during the Battle of Britain. Complete air superiority was won basically because the Germans moved most of their aerial resources into fighting the Allied bombing effort, and in turn they were shot down by US escort fighters.

The bombings were a necessary evil, by the end of the war the Germans didn't have the morale maintain a resistance as Hitler had planned. Why? Their towns were in ruin, their houses destroyed, and their neighbours blown up. Only trouble was the clean-up afterwards.

Only trouble was that they didn't work, because the Germans didn't surrender until they had been utterly defeated on the ground. I'm not sure what alternate history of WWII you've been reading, but I assure you it's not the one that's representative of what actually happened.

Though I'm glad you find that that the wholesale murder of civilians can be justified.

[Aymer de Valence]

How did they crush the morale of the German people who were still fighting fiercely in '45

It's a proven fact that offensive bombing has never broken civilian morale. The British did not falter during The Blitz of 1940, nor did it seem to greatly affect the Japanese. I'm amazed though, that the Germans managed to hang on for as long as they did - the first 1000-strong Allied bombing raid occurred as early as 1942, and by 1944/45 the bombing raids were seemingly endless both day and night. The murder of civilians by the enemy has often had the polar opposite effect of strengthening the people's resolve - the German coastal shelling of Scarborough in WW1 was turned into a propaganda coup by the British to increase volunteers.

If I am brutally honest, the only nation in WW2 where offensive bombing could have affected morale is the USA. Fortunately for their populace, the Axis had no way of bombing their cities - though if they had, it may have made the American people think twice about the conflict they were joining (in Europe at least - revenge on the Japanese was another matter entirely).

Say what you like about the RAF and Dresden, but the Germans seem to have a disturbing passion for bombing civilians knowing full well there was no adequate defence - Guernica in the Spanish Civil War + Zeppelin bombings of London in WW1 (what planes the British did have to combat them were highly ineffective - initially)

[Stavroforos]

I would argue that the Brits had a greater passion for it, considering how their bombing campaigns were designed around how to maximize civilian casualties.

[Diocle]

If I am brutally honest, the only nation in WW2 where offensive bombing could have affected morale is the USA.

Why the Americans only? Have you some source backing this statement?

I've never read anything about the mental weakness of the Yankees in case of bombing ...but the subject is interesting ...

[Stavroforos]

I'm guessing he's referring to the fact that Americans could wage wars overseas with basic impunity at home, and that they wouldn't expect anything like that to happen to them. If the Germans did manage to have some sort of sustained bombing campaign of the US, I'm sure they would have gotten as used to it as any other nation.

[Aymer de Valence]

I've never read anything about the mental weakness of the Yankees in case of bombing

Conveniently you haven't bothered to reference my whole comment

I would argue that the Brits had a greater passion for it, considering how their bombing campaigns were designed around how to maximize civilian casualties.

Ah yes, let's use the same old excuse for German atrocities in WW2 - blame it on the Nazis and sweep it under the carpet. Because the German public totally didn't support their government, and totally weren't elated after the fall of France, and the conquering of mainland Europe....

Also, you seem to be in denial over who was the first nation to commit atrocities against civilians during WW1. Unopposed battleship shelling of coastal towns and flippant use of U-Boat torpedoes, can you guess who it is yet?

If the Germans did manage to have some sort of sustained bombing campaign of the US, I'm sure they would have gotten as used to it as any other nation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Al-Qaeda.html

Don't know how much of this I truly believe, but there was also a documentary on TV here about it a few weeks ago aswell

[Stavroforos]

I'm not sure at what you're getting at, because I never said or implied any of what you just said.

[Border Patrol]

Japan got nuked while Germany got divided. I think the default American reaction to being attacked is fury, not despair. Discounting that US entry was only realized when Germany declared war. Not the other way around.

With that said my vote for most militarily successful nation goes to Pontus. They rocked.

[King_Porus]

Only trouble was that they didn't work, because the Germans didn't surrender until they had been utterly defeated on the ground. I'm not sure what alternate history of WWII you've been reading, but I assure you it's not the one that's representative of what actually happened.

Though I'm glad you find that that the wholesale murder of civilians can be justified.

Maybe you haven't read enough about the Western Front. The Germans in Berlin continued to fight because they new what the Russians would do to them. On the other hand, Germans surrendered by the boat load to advancing Americans in the south. In fact some Wehrmacht units in one particular case actually joined up with Allied units to fight against SS units who were the only ones who continued to fight outside of Berlin and a few special cases. You're the one who should pick up a history book.

And once again I fail to see how the British could have had less of an affect on the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Did RAF planes not shoot down any Germans? That's quite a feat.

Killing civilians can be justified in times of war. Just look at the Yanks dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. If you look at it from such a 1-dimensional perspective as you are doing it just seems like a sink science experiment that the Americans pulled off, but if you actually think about you see that it saved the lives of Allied soldiers who would've had to storm Japan's beaches. In the same way it saved countless lives in Europe when the Germans threw down their weapons and greeted the Americans in the south and the Brits and Canadians farther north. You don't even have to pick up a history textbook to know simple things like this about the war, just pick up BoB if that's more your speed, my friend.

[Aymer de Valence]

when Germany declared war

Quite possibly, the most..........utterly incomprehensible decision of the whole of the 20th Century. Military treaties be damned, that was suicide.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Except that it was never clear that America would stay neutral, they have a fleet and an army and are aiding Britain. The Germans would have had no reason to believe, just based on what they knew, that America would have stayed neutral. In fact the Germans tried really hard to not provoke America in any way, but when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor Germany declared war on America because they wanted to fulfill their alliance with Japan and because they thought that America would concentrate the war against Japan and not Germany. The other thing that declaring war on America did was end the waiting game to see if America was going to join the war, now it was for certain that America and Germany were in a fight (cause you know, declarations of war tend to do that) and so Germany was able to unleash the U-boats it had waiting around, just in case such a war occurred, and attack American shipping. Cold Wars can be pretty nerve wracking and pre-Pearl Harbor was just that, it was a Cold War between America and Germany, an undeclared showdown just both sides waiting for either to make a move. America and Germany were both watching each other and there were quite a few U-boats patrolling the American coast and FDR allowed for attacking of Axis ships (so in a sense America was already part of the war). Hilariously Japan made the first move and everything went to for Germany.

There was no real consensus among the Axis as to how the American public felt about the war but I guess FDR milked Pearl Harbor for all of its propaganda value and I don't think any American civilian really wanted peace until the Axis was defeated, so it was going to be a war in which America would not rest until Germany was defeated and I think the Germans did not see that coming, they probably thought that America would only do a few things and then quit because they weren't really looking to fight.

But about the bombing of Germany, regardless as to how you look at it the facts remain that Germany had to keep half of its air force in home defence. The fact that the Germans were not able to bear a greater force on the Soviets was detrimental to the German war effort in the east.