Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Political implications of the bomber war

Discussion in 'Air War in Western Europe 1939 - 1945' started by Stefan, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    334
    I have been thinking about this recently, what would you guys say were the political implication of the allied bombing campaign in western Europe?

    First off I would say appeasing the Russians was essential, the continued bombing of Germany allowed Churchill and Rosevelt to put off D-Day and appeas the Russian callings for a second front. I have also heared it suggested that US involvement in the bomber war contributed in a similar way, it gave the US forces in Britain something to do in the runup to the invasion.

    Finally there was a HUGE element of keeping the British people happy, after all it was the most visible sign that we were still hitting the Germans and that we were getting payback for the Blitz (with interest).

    Any of you guys care to expand or suggest new points?
     
  2. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    49
    Political implications? Well, it's hard for me to tell more things than the ones you already mentioned, Stefan...

    Morale. Showing the British people that something is being done and that now the Germans are paying dearly for the 'Blitz'.

    Showing Stalin the solidarity of the Western Allies - and also, their might - thus making the Germans pay for the suffering they brought to the Russian people.

    And the rest of it, I think, are tactical and strategical implications... too military for the topic...
     
  3. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    24,201
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Location:
    Finland
    I think Bomber Command ( Harris ) and Churchill believed in strategic bombing all the way though after seeing that battle of Britain did not bring their country to its knees I´d like to know if that was assumed as an exception to the rule(?)

    As well it looked grand in the papers like the famous "1,000 plane attack" to keep the moral high. Or "Hamburg burning".

    Only then comes Stalin´s requirements in my opinion to keeping the bombings going on instead of the invasion.

    I think one must keep in mind that there were not places to wage war with nazis except the Atlantic and North Africa for a period. I even read in one book that it was good for the papers and war effort to have a front somewhere- even if it did not go so well all the time (??!). What if the Germans did not bomb England and there was no North Africa front and U-boats would stay in their pens...What would the papers have written about in the UK..?

    :rolleyes:
     
  4. Onthefield

    Onthefield Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    6
    Well, what is strategic bombin? During the entirety of WWII Germany and the Allies spent most of their time just bombing the major cities with high populations to kill civilians.

    Strategic bombing was done I believe somewhat but I think to the most part the civilians got the brunt of the bombs. :cool:
     
  5. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    762
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    One of the immediate political consequences of the strategic bomber campaign was Hitler's insistance on continued development of weapons for revenge. His backing the V-1 / 2 program and continued bomber production were political decisions that resulted in the massive waste of resources and capital on nearly useless weapons in the name of revenge rather than concentration on weapons that might have strenghtened Germany's ability to win or at least stalemate the war.
     

Share This Page