• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Oh yeah, the English are sooo educated.

#202
Cheeseheads-788770.gif
 
#208
ooops...came in late on this one......but speaking as an old school brit ....it seems we have emigrated ...and our places have been filled by the colonies and eastern europe.......so i would dread to think what the level of historical awareness is amongst that new wave.
 
#210
abngourmet said:
Incorrect. If airpower had been the deciding factor, there would have been no reason to invade. We could have continued bombing until the Germans surrendered. It wasn't the case. Nor was it the case during the Blitz, or American bombing raids against Japan in the Pacific. The British didn't give up despite the destruction of cities like Coventry, nor did the Japanese give up after we laid waste to vast sections of Tokyo. In the case of the Japanese, their capitulation came about only after Nagasaki, when Emperor Hirohito overruled his ministers and Generals and directed Japan's surrender to the Allies.

German war production didn't reach it's peak until September 1944, about 8 months before they capitulated. I submit that given this fact that airpower was not as decisive as some of its champions assert. This is not to diminish its contributions, both direct and indirect to the final victory. However, to say that it was the deciding factor would ignore the fact that we had to go in, on the ground to secure the victory, as men have done for countless centuries.
Click to expand...

not to mention Iraq. Hussein figured he could withstand a couple of weeks of bombing then make a deal, just like last time. nope. Troops on the ground are what took Bagdad.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back