If I remember correctly, didnt Goering say that Britain could be defeated by bombing? As this was all theory at the time (both the US and Britain both thought that bombing would be the way that future wars would be fought) it hadnt been proved either way. It could also be argued that the Blitz had the opposite effect that the German High Command wanted. Churchill knew that hadnt worked but thought that the RAF could do better. Also I wonder what the people who now say that the bombing policy was totally wrong would have done to take the war to Germany? Daylight raids by both the RAF and the US showed the price to be far too high. Even in daylight with no fighter or AAA I doubt if targets could be hit so I think that they had no choice but to do what they did. One thing that struck me was when the aircrews said that they could see their target as a red glow on the horizon whist still flying over England. On another note I do think that from late 1944 large scale raids were not needed.

with regard to the 'winners write history'.....well duh!

the point is if you take into account why the Allies ever got involved in the War and what was ultimately being fought for then without doubt the Allies were the 'good guys' irrespective of any individuals questionable ethics, we can separate the Allies into 2 groups, the Russians had their own part of the war that just happened to align with the US and Brits, this just defaulted them into being an ally, the West had no influence over how they chose to conduct their war, lend lease was not necessarily an endorsement of any conduct either.

well I have a different understanding of the war in Northern Africa: the turning point was at the very beginning, when Vichy France surrendered, leaving a void and space for the Allied invasion to storm in. Other factors like limited or no supplies from Europe, the breaking of the Ultra code and inferior numbers in terms of troops and air support meant that it would only have been a matter of time, especially after the Germans started concentrating their efforts in Barbarossa.

ah come on man, it was just an example.. my grandpa was a partisan and a war amputee, so I doubt I'm prejudiced about the topic..

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.[/QUOTE]

yeah, let's just enjoy the moment ;)

yep, and despite all this, Harris still thought that area bombing in late 1944 was the solution..

I'm not saying that bombing was totally wrong. The total obliteration of Cologne, Dresden and other German cities on the other hand was unnecessary, since the invasion had already started and it was unstoppable.

Bring whatever factors into it you like...the outcome of the conflict was due to how it was managed by both sides.

lets make a hypothetical boxing match between matched opponents, one guy looses ballance....at that instant he is disadvantaged, the other guy isn't guaranteed a victory, he might also slip attempting the deciding blow.....you can see what I'm trying to say can't you.

it's not a case of saying you are completely wrong, it's just a case of saying you are wrong for saying everyone else is.

Lol.

well, I do, but it's not entirely pertinent to the Northern Africa Campaign scenario.

Let me give you a better example and see what you think about it: Russian generals like Zhukov didn't win their battles because they were fine tacticians, they simply poured millions of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of vehicles onto the battlefield, crushing everything on their way. 20 million deads for the Great Patriotic War as they call it is a mind boggling number, but that's the price they were ready to pay for victory. Does this make them good generals?

Patton's and Monty's advance into mainland Europe was highly dependent on fuel availability, so much that they often strongly argued about who should get it first and even air bridges struggled to keep up with it.

Then more than ever, mobility of logistics was the key to victory. Germany was quite good at it, but as resources diminished, so did the fighting capability, so that's the scenario that developed in Africa, exacerbated by the strong weather factors.
LOL :mrgreen:

I'm sorry if it comes out as a "I'm right, you're all wrong", but it surprises me how things that I give for granted in history (especially considering that I've done most of my history studying at a British university, and had a lot of work done on area bombing for a mega-presentation) are often either ignored or not considered valid, and put against non factual arguments, but usually national pride (and there's nothing wrong in national pride, it just doesn't have to get in the way of an objective observation of history).

Try not to go down the Nationalist route please.....I assure you it has nothing to do with it.

it just so happens I am only 1/4 english at best, my origins are oddly enough mostly from places with a historical tendency to be at odds with the British......try Boer and throw in a bit of German French and Irish and a large dolop of Russian.

Oh and I wasn't born in the UK either and I lived in Italy before coming here.

I wasn't referring to you regarding the nationalist route, it's more of a generic feedback I get sometimes, and this applies to every country.

Whereabouts in Italy? :)

I lived in Bologna, initially in the city itself and then we moved into the hills in a place called Rastignano, I wen't to a catholic school in pianoro, I spoke Italian fluently (people thought i was a local kid) and have subsequently forgotten it completely, easy come easy go when youre a kid.