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.
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.
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.
Far from it. It wasn’t bombing campaigns that threatened (and destroyed) their heavy water supplies, it was norvegian partisans.
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.
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.
The brightest mind doesn’t help you if you lack the necessary resources.
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.
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.
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]
