Granted, I'm no WWII historian, so I don't know how the analysis comes out,
but...

wrote in message
...
Inhuman? Yes. Ineffective? No.

If it was effective, why did Germany manage to produce the greatest
amount of war related materials late in the war when the Allied
bombing was at it's greatest effectiveness? Shouldn't things have
been the other way around?

You cannot simply look at the German production numbers and claim that
because they were higher at one point in time than an earlier point in time,
the bombing was ineffective. It's entirely possible that their production
would have been even higher than it was, if not for the bombing.

If you use the reasoning that production would be constant, and you can
judge the effectiveness of the bombing by the production change over time,
then the conclusion one must arrive at is that the bombing actually *helped*
Germany's production. Obviously that's not the case.

So, given that Germany took steps to increase production in spite of the
bombing, it's not possible to say just by looking at the total production
numbers that the bombing wasn't effective. You need to look at what
Germany's production would have been without the bombing.

That's where someone like you, with your obviously greater interest and time
spent researching the events of WWII comes in. I don't know what Germany's
production would have been without the bombing. That said, assuming the
bombs did manage to hit any component of Germany's production stream, it
seems to me it should be taken as obvious that the bombs hurt the production
stream, and that production would have been even higher had the bombing not
occurred.

Pete