this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
468 points (99.0% liked)

World News

54843 readers
3848 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theolodis@feddit.org -4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The only bombing that actually led to results was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And only because if was so devastating, on a scale of cruelty never seen before.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Japan was already ready to surrender actually. The fire bombings had done the job.

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

True. Then I can't think of any examples where it might have worked in history.

[–] Enfors@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So the bombing of tanks, factories, trains, and bridges did nothing?

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

[–] Enfors@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Enfors@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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

I think you've misread something. The statement I replied to was this one:

The only bombing that actually led to results was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In that statement, you made the claim that no other bombing than those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did anything. I'm challenging that claim, which means I'm saying "I'm not convinced that your claim is true". Don't confuse that with me saying "I'm convinced that your claim is false".

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So the war itself, absent the bombings had no power of destruction, killed no one?

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As a German: Hell yes! The Nazis needed putting down and that entire worldview got a thrashing that lastet us a good 70 years before Germany is on the verge of falling to the fash again.

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Germany should have been denazified after the war. It's no wonder that ideology lived on, considering that most members of the NSDAP just moved on to be politicians of CDU/SPD and the KPD was made illegal.

[–] shani66@ani.social 1 points 1 day ago

Which would have involved more destruction, righteous and justified destruction.