Thread 18076477

Did the Allies' strategic bombing of civilians actually shorten WWII or was it just a war crime?

If they would have lost the war id would have been a war crime but the fact that they won makes it a necessity of the war.

Civilian populations do not have a say in war planning or strategic decisions so it obviously did not shorten the war

It made germans fight harder, italians caved in

>>18076477 (OP)
It lengthened WW2 because it prevented collapse of military industrial complex but it also had no military effect. America never bombed a power plant. It never bombed tank factories and the aircraft factories it bombed were easy to disperse and the best Nazi aircraft were made in France.
The concept of strategic bombing means nothing because the vast majority of manufacturing is extremely small scale and bombing the major projects the enemy is wasting time on isn't worthwhile. The b17s were incapable of hitting trains and also synfuel was a scam. What it bombed had no value.
Tactical level bombing of ground forces was done sometimes and had some effect but the strategic campaign mostly killed civilians (not that they cared, they died of meth anyway) and was just a excuse to dump bombs.
The main impact of the air campaign was for American airpower to be btfo against the interceptors, air defense and flak. Even though the losses from flak were low the flak damaged a large amount of aircraft and the bombing was costly up to end of the war.
>>18076486

>>18076477 (OP)
Don't be silly OP. Warcrimes are something that the losing side does; the post war trials prove that!

It's only a war crime if you lose. If you win then it was either an unfortunately grim, but necessary, act; or just 'one of those things'.

>>18076477 (OP)
>Did the Allies' strategic bombing of civilians actually shorten WWII
No, it's a popular misconception largely pushed by pro-U.S hardline revisionists. For proof, all you need to do is look at the effects that similar German and Japanese bombardment had on the populations they were trying to occupy. Did the Poles, Russians, Chinese, or Spanish Republicans stop fighting after they'd seen a bunch of Guernicas? No. Did Dresden and Hamburg, Tokyo and Osaka being burned to ground force Germany and Japan to the table or quash their resistance once the Allies started fighting on German and Japanese land? No.

>>18076477 (OP)
It was obviously a way of crippling the LONGTERM power of these nations. The allies already determined that military victory was assured; it was preventing the losers from ever rising again that became the priority.
Also dropping the nukes was a good way to prevent full scale nuclear war in the future. The effects of a real bombing were visceral and reverberative.

>>18076477 (OP)
It did nothing. Bombing had the exact opposite effect of what they thought they would do. Turns out getting your home and community blown up makes you more likely to fight, not less.