wrote in message
...
On 19 Jun 2004 00:08:13 GMT, (No Such User) wrote:
Arthur Harris insisted right up to the end of the war that his bombers
bomb city centers as the most effective method of bringing the war to
the Germans and shorten it, if not cause them to surrender.

He was mistaken. For instance, when Hamburg was bombed in late 1943,
Bomber Command managed to create the worlds first "firestorm" with
it's bombing tactics. The blaze wiped out the center of Hamburg and
killed many thousands of people. Gale force winds feeding the raging
fire were so powerful they literally ripped babies from mothers arms
and wafted them into the blaze.

But did the damage halt Hamburg from producing war materials? Maybe
for a week or two.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Strategic_bombing

Read the bit under "Effectiveness". While the bombing was wildly
inaccurate (this was known at the time, that's why tactics were
switched to area bombing) it was relentless, with the British bombing
at night, the Americans in the day. German survivors said it had a
huge affect on them...the couldn't work effectively and were constantly
tired and weary. There was a huge diversion of resources.

Production may have increased, but the bombing ensured that the "new"
German weapons of mass destruction didn't come on-line or were
severely limited. One of the aircraft under development allegedly went to
South America (or the plans did) after the war only to be copied (allegedly)
by the Soviets. This became the Mig 15.

The relentless bombing was all part of the "total war" that was being
unleashed upon Germany.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F30934F98

This makes interesting reading if anyone has the time to read it!

Inhuman? Yes. Ineffective? No.

Paul