# WWII and Americas Role **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802 "2003-07-02T16:44:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![sweetbeauty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@sweetbeauty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweetbeauty)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802/81 "2003-07-11T11:09:54Z")
Someone posted before that the Allied bombing campaign wasnt significant or played a pivotal role in the war. This statement is very inncorrect. The Brits were bombing Germany/France first then the Americans came in to help. The Americans were then able to bomb at night with new technology and the Brits remained to bomb mostly during the daytime with some Americans. This bombing totally destroyed many German cities and many horrible deaths were the result. Tens of thousands of innocent people and many factories were destroyed. Once air superiority was established over this part of Europe it was the beginning of the end of the war. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802/82 "2003-07-11T11:16:53Z")
Ehrm, it was Britain that did the night bombing and the U.S. did they day bombing. ---
**Author:** ![sweetbeauty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@sweetbeauty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweetbeauty)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802/83 "2003-07-11T11:42:03Z")
Yes, I stand corrected… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802/84 "2003-07-11T12:02:26Z")
Well, the bombing campaign did serve some purpose, in drawing out the Luftwaffe to come out and play. With the arrival of the P-51 this meant a higher attrition for the Luftwaffe. Plus all planes were spent on defence, instead of being used in ground roles. The big thing about the air-superiority was that ground attack aircraft were free to attack tanks, collumns, trains and bridges. _That_ was of real import. As the figures show production was high right up to the very end. Yes, of course production would have even been evenhigher if nothing were destroyed but the bombing campaign certainly didn’t cripple production nor was it the morale breaker that was hoped. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802/85 "2003-07-11T15:48:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xtisme \* > \*\* > They would of fought the Russians backwards for every mile. It would of taken years of struggle (and inconceivable cost) for the Russians to fight their way back through their own territory that was in Germany’s hands, though Poland and Eastern Europe, and into Germany itself. \*\* Given that the vast majority of defeats looked quite differently, I consider this unlikely. With passing time, the supply line for German troops would have been more and more threatened by resistance with Russia channeling resources and manpower to partisans. Most likely, one way or the other, large parts of German troops would have been cut off from their supplies and been locked in hostile territory with dwindling food and ammunition supplies. Would it have taken longer? Yes. But the Germans were in no position to dig in in Russia, or fight for every inch of territory. They were equipped to deal one, swift, lethal blow, and when that failed, the entire endeavor was doomed. There was practically no winter equipment whatsoever, and lack of a second front would not have changed that when it mattered, because there WAS practically no second front when it mattered. > [@](#): > > \*\* > During that time, the Germans, unhampered by bombing (save for the night time attacks by the British) or threat of invasion of southern or western Europe (and lets not forget its allies like Italy that had manpower that would of been freed up as well) would of been free to develop all those toys THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING ANYWAY. \*\* Far from it. It wasn’t bombing campaigns that threatened (and destroyed) their heavy water supplies, it was norvegian partisans. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You know, like jets, rockets, better tanks, assault rifles, etc etc. They would also of had much more personnel resources without American intervention…all those Luftwaffer pilots that were killed or put on duty in Western Europe would of been free for one thing to pilot those nice Jets. > \*\* You overlook that many of these weapons were developed precisely BECAUSE the tide of the war had turned. The rockets were called ‘Vergeltungswaffen’ (retribution weapons) for a reason. You also neglect that many of these weapons were inappropriately used, such as using jets as bombers that would have been more useful as fighters. And you neglect that the Battle of Britain was not one the Allies chose to fight, but one that the Germans brought to them. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Its more than concievable that, given another 2-3 years of war either the Russians would of been so drained (and Germany and Britain too) that they would of had a cease fire, with German in sole occupation of Western Europe, and probably parts of Eastern Europe too. \*\* It is doubtful that Germany would have been able to hold on to much more than Poland in eastern Europe, plus vassal fascist nations. The resistance was so fierce in many areas that the German resources were not adequate enough to deal with them. As for Russia being drained, again, Russia could have gone on WAY longer than Germany. With large areas basically untouched by war, Russia had more of a problem with logistics than with resources. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If not, again, its concievable that Germany WOULD of figured out how to make and deploy an atomic weapon…they weren’t stupid. They WERE on the wrong track, but given more slack and breathing room, given the real need for it, and given time, they WOULD of figured it out. If WE could, certainly they could. \*\* The brightest mind doesn’t help you if you lack the necessary resources. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Again, nothing I’ve seen remotely convinces me that the Russians could of done it alone. I think that, alone, the Russians COULD have concievable NOT lost…but I do not think they could of WON either. I think that time was on the Germans side though…if they managed to drag things out for a few more years the Russians would of found themselves in a very bad position indeed. \*\* You are free to think so, but given the state of resources of both nations, I don’t consider that view particularly credible. A few years more would not have helped Germany at all. It would have helped Russia considerably, though. You don’t need to shoot a soldier who has died of frost. Another winter would merely have meant another few thousand German soldiers dead without the Russians firing a single bullet. It would have meant more soldiers starving as German supplies get stuck in the mud in spring and in snowstorms in winter. And more people going mad at the ferocity of the fighting and the general carnage. At the same time, Russia would have been able to shuttle more men to the front line from the east. Take a look at [http://members3.boardhost.com/stalingradboard/msg/2128.html](http://members3.boardhost.com/stalingradboard/msg/2128.html) The grandchild of a Stalingrad survivor reports on his grandfather’s experiences there. The Eastern Front was a meat- and soulgrinder of the most abominable proportions for both sides that few who don’t have direct experience or accounts can imagine. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802/86 "2003-07-11T23:30:58Z")
[grammar hijack] > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xtisme \* > \*\*/brief aside > English is my second language, and while (at least in my own mind) I’m pretty good at it, I think that sometimes I don’t get my word usage, spelling or syntax correct. I assume by your post that ‘have’ would be the correct usage? I’ll try and incorporate that into my posts in future. 🙂 /brief aside > > And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread… > > -XT \*\* Your usage would be correct in spoken coversation. The phrase “would have” is often shortened to “would’ve”, which is pronounced the same as “would of”. Even native speakers often write “of”, either out of carelessness or ignorance that there is a different spelling. This sort of abbreviation is called a “contraction”. You can look up the in a search engine if you want more information. [/gramar hijack] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-and-americas-role/185802.md?page=4)