Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nude Bog Lurker
Jan 2, 2007
Fun Shoe

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

I didn't say any of that at all. I'm saying that the bomber strategy should have been scrapped as soon as they knew it was ineffective. I shouldn't have given specific examples, because it's entirely beside the point whether those examples would have worked or not. The failure in this case was a failure to change strategy given overwhelming evidence that it didn't work. Instead of trying to figure out something that would be effective, they morphed it into an equally ineffective but now obviously immoral and illegal campaign against civilian targets. Which, incidentally, still didn't achieve its stated goal of breaking enemy morale.

Why do you think literally every major participant in the Second World War bombed the hell out of enemy cities every chance they got if it was so obviously ineffective? Why did every major participant deploy enormous effort countering enemy bombing campaigns if they were obviously ineffective?

Spoiler: there wasn't overwhelming contemporary evidence it didn't work and only Anglophobe neo-Nazis like you think there was (only not for your beloved Luftwaffe and Goering-kun~~~)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread