StSanta, one thing that keeps getting overlooked is that a lot of what we know about the relative success or failure of any bombing approach was learned after the fact. The bombing surveys did not come out until after the war. At the time, both strategic and dehousing were considered to be more successful than they were (at least directly, see ancillary benefits below). However, they were very successful in some areas (petroleum) and provided at least short-term disruption in most areas attacked -- a week, two weeks, a month -- it all added up. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the terror concept was also still alive and well, in some circles at least. Hitler, for example, seems to have held on to it longer than most with his wasteful V-weapon programs. Terror hadn't been "soundly" rejected, though it was certainly questioned.
There were a lot of ancillary factors as well:
1. You have to factor in a reduction in quality, reliability and service life with the weapons produced.
2. You have to factor in the impact on resources with having to defend the homeland. Each plane defending the homeland couldn't be used out East. Each experienced pilot killed couldn't be replaced (some claim that this aspect made the campaign successful in its own right). Even the "bombing round the clock" concept, that started as a sales pitch to save daylight bombardment, caused a increased dilution of the defense infrastructure compared to a daylight only approach. All of these factors made D-day that much easier, the Russian advance that much easier, and helped speed the end of the war.
3. The fact that we don't know what the final German production numbers would have been without the disruption, drain from relocation, death of skilled workers, and the damage of heavy equipment that couldn't be replaced or relocated. Remember too, those surging production numbers late in the war reflect, in part, Germany's belated switch to a war economy and I believe Speer's partial cleaning of up of the corruption and lack of coordination that had plagued German industry earlier. 25 fewer submarines or several hundred fewer Tigers here or there, and the war is that much shorter with fewer allied causalities.
Hindsight is great, but what's the alternative at the time? Allow unhindered production and say: "The lives of my soldiers and sailors and the life and well being of all those people living in the occupied territories is less important than the lives of German civilians who are supporting their country's war of conquest?" How do you sell that to the families of your soldiers, whose husbands and sons wouldn't even be putting their lives on the line in the first place if it wasn't for Axis aggression? In my estimation, a soldier fighting in defense or to liberate occupied lands is no less valuable than a German housewife. And hell, even in America, hardly the worst sufferer of the war, we lost over 3 "World Trade Centers" a month in war dead.
In an industrial war, one lasting half a decade, production has to be stopped. Tanks that are not made don't kill your tank crews. Torpedoes that aren't fired, because a submarine is not in existence to be on station, allow your troops and weapons to arrive where they are needed. You ask why population center's weren't attacked in Iraq? No need to with no industrial production base. Once a tank is killed on the battlefield it is not going to be replaced.
And speaking of terror. While looking up some facts I came across a photo. I'll post it below but be warned, it is GRAPHIC. Each day the war went on the terror continued in the occupied territories, and bombs weren't involved.
Each day the war was shortened, the more innocent NONAGRESSORS that survived. You'll notice a woman, wounded in a massacre but still alive and fighting for her life in a pit of death. You'll also notice that her terror is finally about to end. Somebody made the bullets in the killer's rifle, the transport that brought the killers East, the ME-109s that spearheaded the advance, and even the dashing uniforms worn by those heroes.
I've seen similarly horrible pictures of German housewives and children killed in an air raid. That is very tragic and horrible. But I would exchange their lives, as a necessary evil, to save as many lives as possible from an unnecessary evil. I would even be fairly generous about the ratio. I would even do it if I didn't know for sure it would be 100 percent effective But strategic bombing did have, in many facets including its main purpose, more than a minor effect on the length of the war. Tragic, but not as tragic as stopping Nazi aggression as rapidly as possible. [edit: I think the statistics still show that FAR more innocents died at the hands of the Nazis than were killed stopping the Nazis, even if you go so far as to consider every civilian and even every soldier as being completely innocent and without blame in the actions of the state.]
Charon
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
