Was the Allied strategic bomber offensive of World War II a total failure?
A few points to suggest that it was (focusing on the ETO):
1. The strategic bombing offensive was a colossal drain on limited resources. In the UK alone over a million workers were tied up in bomber production / associated support industries. Over 50,000 expensively trained Bomber Command aircrew were killed, and thousands of the most costly aircraft destroyed, at a loss rate only equalled by U-boat crews and the UK merchant navy (whose sacrifices had an undoubted effect on the outcome of the war).
2. For this staggering expenditure of lives and materiel, what did the bombing offensive achieve? 'Precision' bombing didn't reduce German war production, in fact it continued to increase until factories were overrun by invading armies. ('Precision' being an optimistic concept at the best of times: neutral Switzerland got so fed up with B-17's accidentally bombing their towns they shot several of them down).
The limited, speedily repaired, damage that was done to the German war industry (in relation to the enormous quantities of bombs showered over Germany) was more than made up for by ramping up overall production, through taking up the slack in the German economy, which wasn't initially geared up for total war.
As for 'area' bombing, the targeting of entire cities also had no effect on the outcome of the war. Pre-war theories about civilian morale under heavy bombing proved false: as in the Blitz, there was no collapse in morale, society didn't break down, no leaders were overthrown as a result of mass panic.
3. Did the 1000's of heavy bombers at the Allies' disposal have any better success when they were used in direct support of ground forces? Despite optimistic predictions about their effectiveness, they missed their targets in support of the Normandy invasion, instead decorating the French countryside with thousands of craters. They killed large numbers of Allied troops, and, if anything, hampered the advance. (Eg the heavy bombing of Caen created a landscape of rubble ideal for the German defenders).
4. Did the bombing offensive shorten the war by a single day? Despite the predictions of the bomber enthusiasts, the war didn't end until ground troops physically occupied the whole of Germany. It has been argued that the bombing offensive was effective at least in forcing Germany into a war of attrition which it could afford even less than the Allies, tying up its overstretched resources in anti-aircraft defences. But how much sooner could the war have been ended if the resources used to mount the bombing offensive had been allocated elsewhere: hundreds of thousands of personnel freed to manufacture 1,000's of extra fighter-bombers, or tanks, or for any other work that might have actually contributed to the war effort.
5. The military legacy of the strategic bomber has been one of wild over-optimism about its potential, and massive exaggeration of its effectiveness. (This legacy continued into the Vietnam era, with tragic results for that country). But the most bitter legacy is the moral one:
6. The large-scale slaughter of civilians (the unstated policy of RAF Bomber Command) cost the Allies the moral high ground. The extermination of German women, men and children (not to mention thousands of French civilians) from the air was one of the worst war crimes of the century. Thousands of brave aircrew who signed up to fight for their country, and pledged their lives in a just cause, instead ended up committing atrocities which were only made possible by the long distance nature of their acts.
This genocidal policy was covered up at the time, and even today is largely consigned to the 'memory hole' of history (does anyone else feel a chill when our revered Lancaster trundles over London dropping showers of.. poppies?). How much more substantial would the Allies' claims about fighting a 'just war' be if they had refrained from copying and surpassing the efforts of the Luftwaffe in civilian slaughter.
7. In addition to this human carnage, the use of the strategic bomber caused the unnecessary destruction of a large proportion of Europe's heritage. How many churches, historic buildings, works of art etc, were erased forever, with no practical benefit to the war effort? Did Europe need to be destroyed in order to be saved?
A few points to suggest that it was (focusing on the ETO):
1. The strategic bombing offensive was a colossal drain on limited resources. In the UK alone over a million workers were tied up in bomber production / associated support industries. Over 50,000 expensively trained Bomber Command aircrew were killed, and thousands of the most costly aircraft destroyed, at a loss rate only equalled by U-boat crews and the UK merchant navy (whose sacrifices had an undoubted effect on the outcome of the war).
2. For this staggering expenditure of lives and materiel, what did the bombing offensive achieve? 'Precision' bombing didn't reduce German war production, in fact it continued to increase until factories were overrun by invading armies. ('Precision' being an optimistic concept at the best of times: neutral Switzerland got so fed up with B-17's accidentally bombing their towns they shot several of them down).
The limited, speedily repaired, damage that was done to the German war industry (in relation to the enormous quantities of bombs showered over Germany) was more than made up for by ramping up overall production, through taking up the slack in the German economy, which wasn't initially geared up for total war.
As for 'area' bombing, the targeting of entire cities also had no effect on the outcome of the war. Pre-war theories about civilian morale under heavy bombing proved false: as in the Blitz, there was no collapse in morale, society didn't break down, no leaders were overthrown as a result of mass panic.
3. Did the 1000's of heavy bombers at the Allies' disposal have any better success when they were used in direct support of ground forces? Despite optimistic predictions about their effectiveness, they missed their targets in support of the Normandy invasion, instead decorating the French countryside with thousands of craters. They killed large numbers of Allied troops, and, if anything, hampered the advance. (Eg the heavy bombing of Caen created a landscape of rubble ideal for the German defenders).
4. Did the bombing offensive shorten the war by a single day? Despite the predictions of the bomber enthusiasts, the war didn't end until ground troops physically occupied the whole of Germany. It has been argued that the bombing offensive was effective at least in forcing Germany into a war of attrition which it could afford even less than the Allies, tying up its overstretched resources in anti-aircraft defences. But how much sooner could the war have been ended if the resources used to mount the bombing offensive had been allocated elsewhere: hundreds of thousands of personnel freed to manufacture 1,000's of extra fighter-bombers, or tanks, or for any other work that might have actually contributed to the war effort.
5. The military legacy of the strategic bomber has been one of wild over-optimism about its potential, and massive exaggeration of its effectiveness. (This legacy continued into the Vietnam era, with tragic results for that country). But the most bitter legacy is the moral one:
6. The large-scale slaughter of civilians (the unstated policy of RAF Bomber Command) cost the Allies the moral high ground. The extermination of German women, men and children (not to mention thousands of French civilians) from the air was one of the worst war crimes of the century. Thousands of brave aircrew who signed up to fight for their country, and pledged their lives in a just cause, instead ended up committing atrocities which were only made possible by the long distance nature of their acts.
This genocidal policy was covered up at the time, and even today is largely consigned to the 'memory hole' of history (does anyone else feel a chill when our revered Lancaster trundles over London dropping showers of.. poppies?). How much more substantial would the Allies' claims about fighting a 'just war' be if they had refrained from copying and surpassing the efforts of the Luftwaffe in civilian slaughter.
7. In addition to this human carnage, the use of the strategic bomber caused the unnecessary destruction of a large proportion of Europe's heritage. How many churches, historic buildings, works of art etc, were erased forever, with no practical benefit to the war effort? Did Europe need to be destroyed in order to be saved?