Strategic Bombing: Was The Controversial Tactic Actually Effective? | WWII in Colour | War Stories
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2024
- After the fall of France in 1940 the only thing standing between Hitler and Britain was the English channel. This led to a huge strategic bombing campaign that would only be disrupted by the invasion of The USSR the following year. By then The Allies began hitting Germany hard with strategic bombing campaigns of their own. This was a controversial tactic with no regard for civilian life, but did it actually work?
War Stories is your one stop shop for all things military history. From Waterloo to Verdun, we'll be bringing you only the best documentaries and stories from history's most engaging and dramatic conflicts.
Discover the past on History Hit, with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly and presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code 'WARSTORIES': historyhit.com/subscription
You can find more from us on:
/ warstoriesdocs
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. For any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com.
#warstories #documentary #military
Stop sugar coating history it may be disturbing but humanity needs to see that war is ugly
Yeah, I agree. As we're inching closer and closer to conflict with 🇨🇳, we need to be reminded that war is pain, suffering, and ⚰️🪦. We must NOT blur out nor censor images regarding the negative consequences of war.
well maybe they believe the Soviet tactics of sending waves of soldiers and tanks into urban areas being more humane?
Stfu and enjoy the show damn
World War II in color is one of the greatest series of all time.
What is it with the scenes where they blur it out? I have noticed this recently and totally understand why people get frustrated by it, you do not watch these documentaries only to feel too sensitive to stomach seeing imagery of death in war!
It's Google and its CZcams policies. They are actively censoring many images in video and sounds. Many documentaries are not allowed now, and CZcams don't accept exceptions to its rules, even for educational purposes.
You Tube has determined that we can’t handle seeing “disturbing images”.
They would get demonetized if they showed bodies. This series is so pro British they are disrespecting American Dominance during this era. Military equipment, financial support, military might, technology.
Put the blame on Boobtube and their silly backward rules. If you do this or don't do that you get hit with a - - - Violation. Kinda like communist censorship, only in the USA. Shalom
@@arickquinton1268 ROFL Typical yank comment.
What a huge waste of resources the Bismarck was.
Hindsight, or something else special about you...?
Bombing raids against Berlin in October 1943 severely damaged the Alkett plant which produced the highly successful StuG III assault guns. German High Command was so worried about the loss of production of the most effective armored fighting vehicles in its inventory that it had to divert production of tanks in an effort to make up some of the lost production of StuG III.
And then the ball bearing factories became a priority which ground all vehicle production down.
Attacking ancillary targets such as ball bearings and petroleum production may be more strategic than even the vehicle factories themselves.
Akin to stopping a railroad by targeting a single bridge or tunnel instead of thousands of miles of track.
If the bombing of cities in the UK hardened peoples' resolve, why did the RAF think it would be different in Germany?
They thought they just needed to do more - and - towards the end it did have an effect on German Morale. It just didn't have that effect as soon as they thought it would.
You have to remember - that no one had ever done this before. So - they were all operating off of theory - and - their implementation of that theory ran into problems associated with reality. The Americans stuck to the idea that they didn't really need bomber escorts far to long and crippled any efforts to develop Escorts or Drop Tanks. All the American Fighters were labeled as _"Interceptors"_ (like the Spitfire was). The Bomber Mafia saw the only use for Fighters as being to defend against Enemy Bombers.
The only reason they let Lockheed develop Drop Tanks for the P-38 - was for the Reconnaissance version but as it happened the fighter version could use them too.
There were other problems with the P-38's and with twin engines they tended to be used over water - like in the Med and the Pacific.
Their loss rates got so high that they began working on better Drop Tanks and brought in the P-51's as Bomber Escorts but they got a lot of guys killed before that happened.
Once it did - the American 8th Air Force destroyed the Luftwaffe - but - the Germans were really tough to beat - especially in 1942. The thing was - with the Axis Powers - they couldn't replace their losses - while the Americans and the Russians could.
.
At the time, it was the only way for Britain to hit back at Germany. Tactical bombing was very inaccurate at night, even for the 8TH Airforce during the day. Strategic bombing was still in its early days and not much was known of how effective it was. The idea of breaking the morale of those subjected to Area bombing was the intent, but history showed that it failed in every theatre. The fact that precious resources were diverted to trying to halt the Bombers was in itself a positive outcome.
Albert Speer told that 1/3 of the military production of germany was lost because of the allied bombers.
Some details wrong. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine gave the P51 Mustang altitude, not range (the previous Allison engine was great at low altitude but performance fell off over 15,000 feet). It was the use of drop tanks that gave the P51 (and the P47) range.
and speed
@@margarita8442 and acceleration
He's right. The advent of wing tanks gave the plane range
well I think you're right on the altitude side of it however the merlin engine did give the mustang a substantial increase in power which because it nearly doubled the effective altitude of the 51 also increased its range (aircraft fly farther at higher altitudes than lower ones, having said that, the use of the drop tanks also dramatically increased the range and loiter time over targets as well)
higher altitude,, thinner air,, more range
Yes it was effective on so many levels. It kept 1m troops and 1700 aircraft tied down, that could have been better used elsewhere.
And made the Russians get to Berlin first.
@@ulfosterberg9116 No, Eisenhower let them. Russians lost between 20m-26m to the Germans.
Not to mention thousands of AA guns placed in the west instead of the eastern front and the fact that the allied air campaign broke the back of the Luftwaffe wich was a prerequisite for a successful invasion of europe.
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py Not quite. The Luffwaffe losses on The Eastern Front were enormous too. Main thing was that 1700 aircraft were tied down with the Bomber Offensive.
It's too bad the episode wasn't about strategic bombing.
Thank you. Won't waste my time watching it now.
Case in point. About 2/3rds of stg44 rifles were destroyed in transit by air power
Questions about whether it reduced net German war materiel production?
Without the bombing it may have doubled or tripled.
Yes -- very successful.
I've always figured the bombing was more retaliatory than strategic.
You figured wrong.
@@currentbatches6205 Say it to my face old man
I think it was a little bit of both. More so probably before the mastered art it was retaliatory with limited effects. When they figured out how to do it effectively it was strategic.
I haven't. For every gun pointing at British and US aircraft was one less pointing at the Soviet forces on the eastern front which was where the war was won.
The problem with bombing civilians is it either hit the morale or made people dig their heels in.
In Germany it was at first a shock but like the British citizen the Germans citizen dug their heels in.
Carpet bombing like at Hamburg which had industrial site while Dresden hardly had any. The result was the fire storms. Was it justified at the time I'm guessing yes. Now I don't think it was.
loved ww2 in colour documentary on Netflix
“Strategic Bombing was a controversial tactic” - From a German prospective or ours?
BOTH.
Pointblank Directive issued June 1943
"Redrafted by the Air Ministry, the directive tasked the 8th US Army Air Force with attacking the aviation industry; RAF Bomber Command would work towards 'the general disorganisation of German industry', as before."
BBC Berlin Air Offensive page
In total war strategic bombing targets all resources the enemy has, and one of the biggest is manpower, the civilian population. That’s the difference from limited to total war, nothing is out of bounds
Yes, like the Germans using their Zeppelins and Gotta heavy bombers over Britain during WWI. They then bombed their way around Europe during WWII, including 40,000 killed at Stalingrad. But of course so many people still discuss Dresden, which only hit the headlines as Goebbels exaggerated the casualty figures by a factor of ten. Yet maybe 60,000 killed at Hamburg, and 100,000 at Tokyo, yet who discusses the latter?
Dresden did have a huge military significance. (19:42). The Soviet army was approaching Berlin and Dresden was the last major city between Berlin and the Soviets. This is where Germans would make a stand and try to stop the Soviets so Stalin asked the allies to demolish Dresden, which they did. That was huge help for the Soviet army.
Incorrect, there is no proof of Stalin specifically requesting this. In fact the Soviets, knowing that they would win the war very shortly, were concerned that they would have a huge task of rebuilding infrastructure for the conquered population. The main argument that Harris and the RAF gave was that Dresden had a huge railway marshalling yard, but ironically, the rail yards were hardly damaged and the civilians were massacred. If the Allies had lost the war, Harris and his ilk would have been on trial for war crimes and rightly so
Ever seen a map? Dresden is straight South from Berlin. It is as they say. "God allows war. It is the only way to teach geography to Americans".
Dresden was also where there was a facility which produced chemical weapons that were used in both World Wars.
No it wasn't.
@@ulfosterberg9116Did the Soviets just head in a straight line from Moscow? Seems a bit of a limited strategy. Stalin requested it. No idea how good his grasp of geography was.
yes, it was worth it. The Germans utilized over 1 million men in anti-aircraft gunnery. That is a LOT of men that would/could have been on the front lines. Add to that the amount of war material involved in the production of AA guns and ammo.
In the middle of a War nobody really knows what's going on with the enemy, nobody can predict what any course of action will achieve and at what cost, right & right becomes very blurred. But doing NOTHING is always the worst option. The fact that this is still being debated & disputed 80 years later, with all our knowledge after the event, shows it was as legitimate & effective as any other action available at the time to win a World War.
....actually about 80 years later, eh?
🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦
Well said
I think ur right
Yep. On the battlefield, there was no way to know what equipment your enemy lacked due to bombing. There was never a situation like "Thank God we bombed the Porsche factories! Otherwise we would've faced approximately twice as many Tigers today." There can be assumptions about what effects you may be inflicting, but attributing specific numbers can't accurately be done during a conflict. Regardless, if you have the ability to strategic bomb an enemy without suffering unsustainable, you probably aren't hurting your chances of winning.
A simple message, if you dont like the heat keep out of the kitchen. There is a saying, dont poke a sleeping bear with a sharp stick. What you sow, so shall thoqw reap. A bitter consequence of war. It plays out today.
Churchill started the campaign of saturation bombing civilians in 1940, Germany did not begin bombing Britain until a few months later.
02:26 - I read on a book from the 60's that Luftwaffe dropped a few bombs in a part of London where the banks were located, with no victims, when they tried to hit a place named Thameshaven, and that was the excuse used by the british to drop bombs over civilians in Berlin. Since Luftwaffe bombers were designed to act as flying artillery in battlefield with two engine and dropping small bombs while the british had four engine bombers to drop huge bombs, I suspect Germany had only tactical bombers, which reveals the Germany was caught by surprise. Also "strategic" is to bomb factories or infrastructure, not murdering sleeping civilians at night. Schweinfurt was "strategic", bombings like Dresden were just war crimes, unpunished, but still war crimes.
Dresden was a legitimate military target. It was a major road and railroad hub where the germans were amassing troops and supplies for the eastern front, that's why the soviets asked the allies to attack it. It hadn't been attacked before not because it wasn't a valid target but because other targets near the west were a priority.
I totally agree with you. I would add that it contained some retaliation spirit by the British, like someone said above.
War, war never changes
Micah’s daddy was killed by the whirlwind
bombing dosnt win wars but helps the effort ,Infantry takes and holds ground thats what wins wars fact
Tactical. bombing.
Is it any different then ordering a Squad of Inf to attack a MG position? It had to be taken out to win the war. War is horrible and should not be entered in to lightly. But when interred in to must be fought to the fullest, sadly that means civilian casualties. The same civilians some of whom make the weapons and ammo there military ues.
Prior to the Mustang, USAAF command condemned bomber crews to suicide missions.
P47 Thunderbolt after improvements to engine and climb rate (paddle prop) did most of the damage to luftwaffe prior to d-day. This fact frequently overlooked .
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage documentary about Nazism regime strategic bombarding failed by its airforces and Nazism naval confronted allies ( UK 🇬🇧 and the USA 🇺🇸) airforces and navy fleets during WW2
Again, a very good, if summary, documentary -- covering too many different topics.
If you have any questions regarding the issue, you need to read "How the War Was Won" (O'Brien). Not only was strategic bombing effective, but it did also win the war in Europe.
You cannot fight with weapons which are not produced or languishing in the factories because there is no fuel available to get them where they were needed. Strategic bombing did that in the Western front.
In the Pacific, Naval efforts combined with strategic bombing sufficed.
So
That book is considered by many historians to be revisionist.
@@alankucar8025 It also happens to be extremely well researched and fits the facts, unlike many others.
@@alankucar8025I consider people who were there at that time to be the experts. Historians who weren't would be the revisionists.
how was the strategic bombing controversial?
Who's here after watching Masters of the air? 🏆
Hmmm, the Japanese thought it was....
I mean not really, they refused to surrender after most of their country had been lay to ruins...didn't even surrender after being nuked, it took a second one and they still weren't going to surrender until the emperor intervened to break the dead lock
@@iitzfizz Actually the Emperor intervened after the Zhukov, leading the Red Army came into China and obliterated the Japs
Not a very good program dealing with the question asked: 'Strategic Bombing: Was the Controversial Tactic Actually Effective'. Much of the program deals with other matters, such as the Battle of the Atlantic. As for that part of the program that did deal with strategic bombing, the above question doesn't appear to be addressed. Reasons for why policies and tactics were adopted don't appear to be properly covered, such as the reasons for Arthur Harris adopting area, or carpet, bombing, or why the U.S. forces felt they could bomb accurately by day. The episode 'Whirlwind' from the series 'The World at War, narrated by Lawrence Olivier, appears to contain a better summary. As well as dealing exclusive with strategic bombing over Germany, this looks at some of the reasons. Interviews with individuals such as Arthur Harris and Albert Speer are included, in which they give their theories and conclusions. In particular, Speer said that the bombing strategy tied up thousands of weapons and personnel and used millions of rounds of ammunition, so the bombing strategy was in effect a 'Second Front' (his words). Finally, I had the uncomfortable feeling that the presenter had already decided as to whether "the controversial tactic [was] actually effective" and that this program was presented in a way to justify such conclusions, rather than letting the program itself provide a possible answer one way or the other.
Feel free to produce your own opinions, but please make them polite.
Err harris was actually against bombing Dresden.but ordered by Churchill.who later denied this
Who else is watching this in 2021 :D
Can I have a go in your time machine next?🤔
If you're in2021, I have one tip for you: buy Bitcoin when it drops to $16k in 2022, you'll be rich by 2024. Actually, and I know it sounds dumb, but in December of 23, a dumb meme coin called WIF (dogwifhat) will come out at about $0.05. By May you'll be up over 1,800%. You're welcome.
2024 yo
2021? It 2004. March22nd
Yeah, this 3rd COVID 19 lockdown slaps, thank god. For this channel.
it isnt controversial if people understood the situation the post Pearl Harbour ALLIES faced . 1, USSR demanded western allies open A SECOND FRONT early as possible1942 NORTHERN FRANCE. The western ALLIES were not militariy strong enough to do this. the best Churchill and fdr could offer was an ever increasing bombing of GERMAN CITIES,. IN JULY FDR commited to an opening of a second front at nw AFRICA (TORCH)november 1942.this was the only sensible decision UK/USA could make after loss of TUBRUK in june 1942, This was vital the ALLIES gained NAVAL SUPREMACY OF MEDITTERANEAN , TOO MUCH EFFORT was being wasted by having allied shipping supplying EGYPT and INDIA via CAPE OF GOOD HOPE SOTH AFRICA
Show me a war that is not Total! After all the protagonist's are not Playing Tiddlywinks.
I'm looking at the Black Gap and I'm thinking to myself, "Why isn't GREENLAND being used for Allied aerodromes?" Yes, it's covered in ice and snow. 1.) However, couldn't the Allies have fitted the planes with skis for landing gear? 2.)Couldn't they have built covered and heated aerodrome garages for the planes? 3.) Couldn't they have used bulldozers to move snow off of the runways? 4.) Would it have been at least possible to fly from Greenland during the SUMMER? I mean, Greenland was Danish 🇩🇰🇬🇱, and the Danes automatically became part of the Allies when the Germans conquered Denmark. Does anybody know why Greenland was not used by the Allies to cover the Black Gap? Thank-you for reading. 🙋🏻♂️🇺🇸🤝🇩🇰🇬🇱
The premise behind the 'Straegic Bombing' campaign was that it would lead to a collapse in German civilian morale, which in turn would affect German war production. This didn't happen, so the Strategic bombing campaign failed against its primary objective. However, it did lead to a substantial diversion of German resources away from the Eastern front, which weakened Germany's effectiveness in the war against the Soviet Union, and it therefore achieved something, if not what was originally intended.
Or that was the excuse british authorities gave to the public because the real goal was to fight a war of attrition in the air to destroy the Luftwaffe before D-day.
1000 bomber raid.
That's why they call him Bomber Harris.
Do you know what Curtis LeMay said after he learned that Bomber Command bombed out a couple of square miles of Hamburg? "Hold my beer"
If you dont want war don't start one, simple asHARRIS said sew the wind reap the whirlwind!!!
Churchill was a butcher
RUBBISH
No it just killed a bunch of innocent civilians.
So, a worker in an ammunition, aircraft or tank factory is an innocent civilian...?
@@Lassisvulgaris no I'm talking about the intentional bombings of Dresden and Hamburg etc. that killed thousands of innocent women and children, they were not soldiers dude.
FDR said every boy-scout collecting scrap metal was the equivalent of a Marine on Guadalcanal. Japan armed teenagers with bamboo spears.
Please tell us who is an "innocent civilian".
Have a look at the National Socialist rallies, full of innocent civilians.
@@currentbatches6205 yes that was right after he knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor and didn't tell anyone about it. His dumb policies failed to get us outta the great depression but a war would do it.
8:00 Only 39 aircraft were lost... hah. That's more than like the entire Ukraine War so far. Wild the discrepancy in the size of the two conflicts.
If the effect was to destroy Germanys arms industry, it failed. It was their lack of fuel that lost them the war. Germany produced more weapons and aircraft in 1944 than any other year. US bombing tactics were abysmal with some being 8 miles off target, and this was in daylight. When the lead plane dropped its bombs, all those behind did the same, going back as many as 12 miles. Some navigators never looked through a bombsight on missions because of this. They scrapped the upper and lower turret gunners to save weight because the British were getting the Mosquito to carry more than a B17, with a crew of two. Its 1935 design was showing. The Lancaster carried twice the bomb load with half the crew. It took the American 6 months to g train a B17 crew. It only took the British 3 weeks to train a Lancaster crew. Many Lancaster crew did over 200 missions by the end of the war. The Americans went home after 25.
So what you're saying is that carpet bombing is the answer
@Steve1734 British BS.You have no idea what you are talking about.
SPAATZ: Which had the more effect in the defeat of Germany, the area bombing or the precision bombing ~
GOERING: The precision bombing, because it was decisive. Destroyed cities could be evacuated but destroyed industry was difficult to replace.
SPAATZ: Did the Germans realize that the American Air Forces by intention did only precision bombing ?
-5
GOERING ~ Yes. I planned to do only precision bombing myself at
the beginning.
pdf Goering Interrogation - Jewish Virtual Library
DH98 Mosquito B.IX
54 built
1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines - otherwise as B.IV. 54 built. Could carry 2,000 lb internally, plus one 500 lb bomb or a drop tank under each wing. Some modified with bulged bomb bay doors for 4,000 lb bomb.
BAE Mosquito page
If the bombing crippled the germail oil supply, doesn't that count as "destroying the german arms industry"?
What was a joke was the almost non-existent tactical air support the RAF and the French gave their troops in the crucial Battle of France in 1940; while the Luftwaffe terrorized the allied ground forces and knocked out bunkers and tanks left and right.
Please spare a thought for the poor sods who went to attack German bridges in the three man, single engine Fairey Battle, as not many of them came back.
@@breamoreboy The fliers were brave but the idiots who sent them into battle woefully unprepared with bad weapons and tactics in an obsolete plane were criminally incompetent. Originally the Fairey Battle was supposed to be a *STRATEGIC* bomber, until even the fatheads in Bomber Command saw the folly of a single engine strategic bomber.
The British did not modify or improve the 51. They, in fact, firstly denied the supercharger on the aircraft which limited its high altitude performance. An American test pilot recommended the RR engine. You Brits are innovative but please try to get your history right.
The reason that the first Mustangs arriving in Europe had the underperforming Allison engines was because the advanced 2 stage superchargers that yielded better high altitude performance were considered to be 'protected technology' that the US government didn't want exported overseas. Virtually all high performance aircraft engines of the period had some sort of turbo or supercharged air induction system to boost horsepower and the British certainly wouldn't have ordered them without one installed, regardless of the poor performance above 15,000 feet. The Mustang could have been built with a much better engine in the US, but a modified Allison, which wasn't even fully developed at the time, would have been longer in size requiring extensive and time consuming modifications to the airframe. Further, it was a Rolls Royce test pilot that first suggested that a Merlin engine be installed, and the rest is history. There were still some modifications required to accommodate the heavier Merlin engine, but it was an overall better fit. The final variant, the P-51D, had a licensed built by Packard, Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650. At the end of the day, it was a beautifully designed American fighter with an outstanding British designed engine and there's nothing wrong with that. No, I'm not from the UK, and you need to get your facts straight. This stuff is all freely available online.
The Merlin that was powerful enough to power the Mustang in 1943, didn't exist in 1940.
@@richardvernon317 The Merlin was first introduced in 1933 and by 1937/38 was capable of 2160 hp. so you are wrong.
@@jasonjennings4349 No Merlin ever kicked out 2000HP ever bar a short life racing engine for an air speed attempt built in 1938 of which only one was built and it couldn't pass the required bench test life to allow it to be put in an aircraft. The Merlin didn't enter production until 1936. You really don't know what you are talking about and you should stop showing your ignorance on the internet.
@@richardvernon317 you're wrong little boy.
No. No it wasn't. At least not until the atomic bomb
No, strategic bombing was not a success and needlessly cost many men's lives. The Germans said it was the tactical bombing of military supplies that was successful (9th AF). That prevented resupply as well as the supply of fuel to the combat units. Bombing train yards was a good idea. Nobody has ever explained by the Allies did not bomb the railways to the East of Germany which would have stopped the trains running to the Eastern front as well as the trains taking the last Jews to the death camps. Big question there.
You are not educated in the matter.
Range of the bombers? Complete lack of fighter support?
SPAATZ: Which had the more effect in the defeat of Germany, the area bombing or the precision bombing ~
GOERING: The precision bombing, because it was decisive. Destroyed cities could be evacuated but destroyed industry was difficult to replace.
SPAATZ: Did the Germans realize that the American Air Forces by intention did only precision bombing ?
-5
GOERING ~ Yes. I planned to do only precision bombing myself at the beginning.
pdf Goering Interrogation - Jewish Virtual Library
Was The Controversial of Strategic Bombing Tactic Actually Effective?
A little late for this argument given the fact it was done almost 80 years ago
The answer is no, no it wasn't. In fact it had the exact opposite effect of what it was thought would happen and it steeled the resolve of both the German and Japanese population to fight on, and to fight harder.
Strategic bombing is never effective. Only delusional morons actually believe that. History already proven it failed many times.
WW2 Europe, WW2 Japan, Vietnam, and even the war in Ukraine.
@@jebbroham1776 The resolve of both the German and Japanese population to fight on, and to fight harder was not my point.
My point is you can't change the past.
Yet almost 80 have pasted yet people are still arguing over the tactic was effective or not.
As if answer one way or another could somehow bring the people that died as a result of the bombing back to life.
The argument is both stupid and useless
@@jebbroham1776 The answer is, 100%, YES. Read O'Brien or offer a cite to the contrary.
There are no civilian's in war. Everyone does there bit for their country. Yes it did work. We won didn't we duh!
The only enemy it worked on was the Italians. The German and Japanese populations on the other hand were not discouraged or demoralized by the bombing campaigns in ANY way, quite the opposite in fact.
The Japanese public was lied to by their government for the first couple of years. Their news stated that dozens of US ships were sunk and hundreds of planes destroyed every encounter with the emperor’s forces. They were shocked when the strategic bombing campaign kicked off turning their cities and industries into rubble. I don’t know if that demoralized them, but it definitely brought them to reality and let them know (even if they wouldn’t say it) that their emperor was lying.
This is hugely biased on British. And not the real monster of Americans
Your grammar is hideous.
For most of the war in Europe USAAF targets were selected by the British.
No it wasn’t accurate at all it was pretty much a vengeance weapon and anti morale weapon it killed indiscriminately and weakened morale
It did not have to be "accurate" to win the war. Which it did.
@@currentbatches6205 So
@@currentbatches6205 you are annoying af don’t say 💩 to me
@@currentbatches6205 I want to know what you look like tbh I’m curious 😅 lmao
@@currentbatches6205 didn’t win 💩 whatever comes out your mouth is nonsense
Could you fit anymore effing ads on your video???
Download the video and watch it off line on your computer. No ads~! Shalom
America didn't enter the European war until late 1943.
I can’t handle the pro British propaganda that is this channel
You guys are just now admitting that the Allies bombed mass numbers of innocent civilians? They committed tons of atrocities too. Obviously it angers you guys when someone presents you with the truth. Neither side should have bombed civilians and it was definitely a war crime when the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan
No, it was not a war crime. Learn what that term actually means before tossing it around to represent your personal opinion.
@@mikearmstrong8483 According to the rules of war it WAS a war crime and you don't know what you're talking about.
@@loungepuppy799it was the only way, what was the alternative?
Shame we lost WWII...if Germany had REAL leadership we would have won. WWII shouldnt have had to happen but no choice. Allies forced both world wars.
No it's not a shame you lost but a good thing. Go back to playing your tiny violin.
Allies forced both world wars? I don’t recall the British going to war with Serbia or invading Poland. And America turned up late for both…
@bob_the_bomb4508 we didn't get invited to your party. But we were there for most of it and you couldn't have done it without us.
@@shawnjohnson9763 the point I was making was that the OP can’t realistically blame the US for starting wars that it only joined much later…
Interesting world you live in
Civilians have ALWAYS been considered a legitimate target in warfare, awful but true.
If you can starve a population of a besieged city you won the siege, it's just a small step away from dropping bombs on them.
However, RAF carpet bombing was a total failure and the immense resources wasted on building Bomber Command should have been spent on the army, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of men performing mundane tasks on airfields all over the UK while whole infantry divisions were being disbanded to provide much needed reinforcements for other units.
I believe that if BC had been scaled back to 50 Mosquito bomber squadrons and no heavies the war may have ended sooner.
As you're clearly an expert please explain the impact of the estimated 50,000 anti-aircraft guns defending the west that would have been used on the Soviet armour in the east, where the war was won. Thank you in anticipation.
What about the 8th AIRFORCE? It was the same result for them.
@@rustykilt
On the rare occasion when the skies were clear over Europe and the Germans didn't shroud the target with a smokescreen the 8th and 15th AF bombing results were good but their main contribution once US LR fighter escort became commonplace in early 44 was the rapid wearing down and eventual near destruction of the western Luftwaffe day fighter force before D Day in June 44 and that combined with their inconsistently good bombing results made their efforts very worthwhile indeed, especially considering how easily the USA could afford such an enterprise without jeopardising other areas of their war effort.
The allied air campaign did achieve one major task, wich was the destruction of the Luftwaffe, even if by attrition. That was vital for the success of D-day.
what a load of rubbish. SIR ANTONY BEEVOR DESCRIBES IN DETAIL RAF ACHIEVMENTS. SHOULD READ IT
CZcams censorship at work 🤡
Ummm....yes. Worked in Japan as well. Anyone who doesn't understand this is ignorant.