I did not intend to say that the strategic bombing was ineffective.
The German bombing of Britain only made British resolve stronger because they never attained the level of terror bombing -- wiping out whole populations.
What has become more of an emphasis as I see it is the effort to destroy the civilian infrastructure. How long could New York City hold out if its water and sewage systems were wiped out, especially if efforts to resupply it with water would be subject to bombing?
Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > No, it is not all right. The Dresden-Hiroshima came late in the game
> > after the war was pretty well lost.
>
> As I said, that is also when 3/4's of the bombing in WWII took place:
>
> > The American talked about economic chokepoints for much of the war, but
> > after that didn't work and once they had air control they acted exactly
> > like the RAF. The Allies dropped 2,700,000 tons of bombs on Germany; 72
> > percent were dropped between July 1, 1944 and the collapse of Germany.
>
> This is what people are referring to when they say "strategic" bombing,
> Michael (as opposed to tactical, which is in support of troops). And this
> is what they (including Gailbraith) decided was ineffective. By saying it
> happened "after the war was lost" you seem to be agreeing.
>
> Michael
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901