Robert McNamara was asked about the fire bombing of Tokyo he an Curtis LeMay the '11 Lessons' documentary, and I recall him saying 'it was a warcrime', which I found a stunning thing for him to say. As with many 'state enterprises', it seems to me that people who are essentially civil servants trying to big up their own departments - in this case the airforce - want to promise the moon to get all the resources, and from your video it would suggest Harris never got past his carpet bombing habits, even with evidence to the contrary. What I really took away from this video was that there is no silver bullet, and that as always it was combined arms that ultimately won. Thanks fr another great War Room episode!
The experience of the Vietnam War further proves your point. Even after destroying every target in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the USAF destroyed the jungle, and it wasn't enough to defeat the Vietnamese, and the US lost the war in the end. What it did do was massive civilian casualties and a country destroyed for years, which has not completely healed from the scars of the war
I have to say that was excellent. Well done, one of the most insightful, honest, unbiased, and brilliantly presented videos I have ever seen on this subject. 👏👏👏👏👏
Hapless is now casually putting military aviation history out of work with superior content. As a side job. 💀 But all jokes aside, very good video. :) I agree that only a nuclear bombardment will work within this strategy. Everything else is basically a slightly bigger form of interdiction. Yes, it had an impact, but it definitely didn't win the war singlehandedly. Which explains why later on, the US air force in particular switched to a more tactically oriented force.
It’s fascinating to see the interplay of domestic stability and politics and wartime theory and strategy as presented here. This is some solid historiography
Interestingly the heavy bombing of Berlin may of actually had consequences on the Soviet advance during its city fighting as the Germans had caused in Stalingrad. Due to how bombed out much of the city was and the ruins inside Berlin were, it actually provided some additional cover and options of defence for the Germans that having a more intact city would.
To be fair, the Soviets bombed and shelled the city themselves too, so I doubt it would have made much difference. They were essentially blasting their way through the city, rather than trying to do anything more fancy.
I haven't finished the video yet. However I will say if people found this interesting Lord Hardthrasher has done a 5 part video series on the Allied bomber offensive. Starting with the Theory, the Norden, The Butt report, 8th airforce and finally the post D-Day sorties. Anyway back to the video
The concept being wrong and not working isn't exactly the same as it being an excuse. I don't think Harris spent his time salivating over the prospect of incinerating German cities because he wanted an excuse to massacre civilians. He thought that killing enough civilians would shorten the war and seen as though they were enemy civilians, that was a price worth paying. There's a difference.
Robert McNamara was asked about the fire bombing of Tokyo he an Curtis LeMay the '11 Lessons' documentary, and I recall him saying 'it was a warcrime', which I found a stunning thing for him to say. As with many 'state enterprises', it seems to me that people who are essentially civil servants trying to big up their own departments - in this case the airforce - want to promise the moon to get all the resources, and from your video it would suggest Harris never got past his carpet bombing habits, even with evidence to the contrary.
What I really took away from this video was that there is no silver bullet, and that as always it was combined arms that ultimately won. Thanks fr another great War Room episode!
Yep.
The experience of the Vietnam War further proves your point. Even after destroying every target in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the USAF destroyed the jungle, and it wasn't enough to defeat the Vietnamese, and the US lost the war in the end. What it did do was massive civilian casualties and a country destroyed for years, which has not completely healed from the scars of the war
Yep. It hasn't worked yet.
Another episode of the War Room, another blessing from the lord!
Without exaggeration, your content is seriously some of the very best on TH-cam :)
Your war room series is one of the best military history series on TH-cam. Well deserving of more views
Thanks very much man!
I have to say that was excellent. Well done, one of the most insightful, honest, unbiased, and brilliantly presented videos I have ever seen on this subject. 👏👏👏👏👏
Incredible video hapless, always providing insights in a clear and consise format
Thanks very much!
Many thanks. I love the articulate clarity of your presentation. Well done.
Thanks very much man!
found Perun's long lost british brother
Hapless is now casually putting military aviation history out of work with superior content. As a side job. 💀
But all jokes aside, very good video. :)
I agree that only a nuclear bombardment will work within this strategy. Everything else is basically a slightly bigger form of interdiction. Yes, it had an impact, but it definitely didn't win the war singlehandedly.
Which explains why later on, the US air force in particular switched to a more tactically oriented force.
Thanks man! Whether nuclear bombardment would work is another video- lots of variables in there.
You have a talent for performing presentations. Your war room videos are always amazing!
It’s fascinating to see the interplay of domestic stability and politics and wartime theory and strategy as presented here. This is some solid historiography
Interestingly the heavy bombing of Berlin may of actually had consequences on the Soviet advance during its city fighting as the Germans had caused in Stalingrad.
Due to how bombed out much of the city was and the ruins inside Berlin were, it actually provided some additional cover and options of defence for the Germans that having a more intact city would.
To be fair, the Soviets bombed and shelled the city themselves too, so I doubt it would have made much difference. They were essentially blasting their way through the city, rather than trying to do anything more fancy.
Excellent presentation. It is imperative to understand the motivations for actions, as you have explained here.
The USAAF 8th Air Force alone suffered more casualties than the entire US Marine Corps during WW2. If you include all of the USAAF it isnt even close
Which books would you recommend to read to know more about this topic?
Max Hasting's 'Bomber Command' is probably the best single volume.
@@usuallyhapless9481 Good to know. Thank you.
Is it Bomber Command Day or something?
That's 25th July apparently
I haven't finished the video yet. However I will say if people found this interesting
Lord Hardthrasher has done a 5 part video series on the Allied bomber offensive. Starting with the Theory, the Norden, The Butt report, 8th airforce and finally the post D-Day sorties.
Anyway back to the video
In other words: WW2 bombing was mostly a excuse to massacre civilians at horrible strategic and casualty costs.
The concept being wrong and not working isn't exactly the same as it being an excuse. I don't think Harris spent his time salivating over the prospect of incinerating German cities because he wanted an excuse to massacre civilians. He thought that killing enough civilians would shorten the war and seen as though they were enemy civilians, that was a price worth paying. There's a difference.