Military force kills people and breaks things. The US military is incredibly good at this. Wielding the power of destruction in a manner that produces positive outcomes is the job of politicians, and the Executive Branch happens to be incredibly bad at this.
The only bombing that actually led to results was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And only because if was so devastating, on a scale of cruelty never seen before.
The Russian march across Eastern Europe involved much more than raw manpower. Soviet Tanks were a force to be reconned with. Their use of artillery was inspired. Georgy Zhukov was a genius field marshal and outmaneuvered the fascist armies both retreating and advancing. He did not just win on numbers.
That said, you’ll find quite a few Cold Warriors who took the view - after the dust had settled - that Europe would have been far better united under a German military dictatorship than bifricated between NATO and the Soviet Union.
You asked me an irrelevant question, because the original point, to which you replied, was not if bombing stuff did anything.
Wielding the power of destruction in a manner that produces positive outcomes
Is this even possible?
So you seem to believe that during WWII the bombing led to a positive outcome, a claim you make and that I challenged. Now of course you’re free to provide evidence supporting your claim, but I do not believe that the bombing led to a positive outcome.
You asked me an irrelevant question, because the original point, to which you replied, was not if bombing stuff did anything.
I think you’ve misread something. The statement I replied to was this one:
The only bombing that actually led to results was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In that statement, you made the claim that no other bombing than those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did anything. I’m challenging that claim, which means I’m saying “I’m not convinced that your claim is true”. Don’t confuse that with me saying “I’m convinced that your claim is false”.
As a German: Hell yes! The Nazis needed putting down and that entire worldview got a thrashing that lastet us a good 70 years before Germany is on the verge of falling to the fash again.
Germany should have been denazified after the war. It’s no wonder that ideology lived on, considering that most members of the NSDAP just moved on to be politicians of CDU/SPD and the KPD was made illegal.
Military force kills people and breaks things. The US military is incredibly good at this. Wielding the power of destruction in a manner that produces positive outcomes is the job of politicians, and the Executive Branch happens to be incredibly bad at this.
Is this even possible?
Yes, they could destroy the oligarchs and kleptocrats draining this planet of its life.
That’s Tankie Talk.
Probably, but only in retrospect.
WW2
Business Collaboration with Nazi Germany
I would also refer you to the Lord Halifax, Documents And Materials Relating To The Eve Of The Second World War Vol. 1
The Nazi War machine only existed thanks to the Trans-Atlantic military industrial complex.
The only bombing that actually led to results was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And only because if was so devastating, on a scale of cruelty never seen before.
Japan was already ready to surrender actually. The fire bombings had done the job.
True. Then I can’t think of any examples where it might have worked in history.
So the bombing of tanks, factories, trains, and bridges did nothing?
I’d argue that it did less than what Russia did in WWII: invade with overwhelming superiority in men
The Russian march across Eastern Europe involved much more than raw manpower. Soviet Tanks were a force to be reconned with. Their use of artillery was inspired. Georgy Zhukov was a genius field marshal and outmaneuvered the fascist armies both retreating and advancing. He did not just win on numbers.
That said, you’ll find quite a few Cold Warriors who took the view - after the dust had settled - that Europe would have been far better united under a German military dictatorship than bifricated between NATO and the Soviet Union.
That’s irrelevant to this point. I asked you a yes / no question. You’re free to concede the point if you don’t want to answer.
You asked me an irrelevant question, because the original point, to which you replied, was not if bombing stuff did anything.
So you seem to believe that during WWII the bombing led to a positive outcome, a claim you make and that I challenged. Now of course you’re free to provide evidence supporting your claim, but I do not believe that the bombing led to a positive outcome.
I think you’ve misread something. The statement I replied to was this one:
In that statement, you made the claim that no other bombing than those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did anything. I’m challenging that claim, which means I’m saying “I’m not convinced that your claim is true”. Don’t confuse that with me saying “I’m convinced that your claim is false”.
So the war itself, absent the bombings had no power of destruction, killed no one?
Is that a positive outcome?
As a German: Hell yes! The Nazis needed putting down and that entire worldview got a thrashing that lastet us a good 70 years before Germany is on the verge of falling to the fash again.
Germany should have been denazified after the war. It’s no wonder that ideology lived on, considering that most members of the NSDAP just moved on to be politicians of CDU/SPD and the KPD was made illegal.
Which would have involved more destruction, righteous and justified destruction.
It was better than letting the genociders take over without pushback.