• theolodis@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d argue that it did less than what Russia did in WWII: invade with overwhelming superiority in men

      • Enfors@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s irrelevant to this point. I asked you a yes / no question. You’re free to concede the point if you don’t want to answer.

        • theolodis@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You asked me an irrelevant question, because the original point, to which you replied, was not if bombing stuff did anything.

          Wielding the power of destruction in a manner that produces positive outcomes

          Is this even possible?

          So you seem to believe that during WWII the bombing led to a positive outcome, a claim you make and that I challenged. Now of course you’re free to provide evidence supporting your claim, but I do not believe that the bombing led to a positive outcome.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The Russian march across Eastern Europe involved much more than raw manpower. Soviet Tanks were a force to be reconned with. Their use of artillery was inspired. Georgy Zhukov was a genius field marshal and outmaneuvered the fascist armies both retreating and advancing. He did not just win on numbers.

        That said, you’ll find quite a few Cold Warriors who took the view - after the dust had settled - that Europe would have been far better united under a German military dictatorship than bifricated between NATO and the Soviet Union.