Regarding the new rule and strategic bombing?

I got to wonder since while I think that yes it was horrible ,I still wonder how will we talk about it now in the forum (personally, I tend to think that the ally bombing had effect on nazi germany industry/infrastructure [particulary in 1945],logistic and disperssing military force that could have been more useful on the front).

note: not sure if my english is correct, so sorry for my mistake and I’m not sure if this count as promoting extreme ideology


1 your English is really good, don’t worry(better than my French here in Oradour)on vacation. I know a user attacked you in the past for your English but he was wrong. In any case Scolding is already forbidden and he removed the insults only for that reason according to himself. To all please accept that I and others don’t write perfect English.


some need to accept that not everyone here is english (and the show help me understand english too)


Hi Jean.Marc,

I think that strategic bombing and all forms of total war are terrible. And even the direct destruction of industries and military objective can have a direct effect, I cannot think on examples where the demoralization of the population lead to a victory of the opponent. Probably the local propaganda, calling to defend the country, has been very effective as a countermeasure against it.


Yes it is a horrible method (we agree)but the bombing of oil, ball bearings marshalling yards had effects and the Holocaust had to be stopped. Manymore died there.

Also we need to timeshift to the early 1940s. Their trauma was the WW1 trench with millions of dead for no gain. Brand new airpower was seen as an alternative.

As for morale., Popular “history” shows the Goebbels " We want Total war footage" as proof. Nowadays it is more accepted that Germans were depressed. They also knew about the Shoah.

Of course Stauffenberg and others tried and failed to kill Hitler. For a Prussian to break his oath is a sign of low morale and having your cities bombed in spite of Goering didn’t help.

With Japan it is clearer. In 1941 the fleet left Hiroshima bay for a vicious sneak attack on 1945 the city was nuked (also horrible) and 3 days later Nagasaki. In his surrender speech Emperor Hiro Hito specifically mentioned the bomb. (World destroying weapon)
Great question Ramirovera,

Demoralizing the leadership is better but in case of the National Socialists: They couldn’t care less about fellow Germans either. Their followers like Rommel were seen as useful and dispensable idiots who did their bidding for titles That they would fight on the streets of Berlin was unthinkable at the time too.

By the way Yugoslavia (Serbia )was bombed into an agreement in 1999 without an invasion too.

and the effect of strategic bombing on german prduction could be seen in 1945 (ref to the chaos that was the production of the heinkel 162 or the multiple bf 109 G6/R6 being destroyed at a WNF factory)

1 Like

I would say it is one thing to at least try to hit production facilities, marshaling yards, or similar targets but cause collateral damage while doing so (you can not ask too much from the WW II era technology) - and whole another to just target population centers and hope that you cause something military related damage while doing so.

1 Like