Hey...

lol

Attached: NRA1.gif (513x437, 142.65K)

Inefficient and insufficient. The first large-scale bomber raid was in May 1942 on Cologne and it took months to repeat that and only by 1943 were they in any way regular. Even then the losses were high and results mediocre until 1944

“In the first half of 1944, battle casualty rates for every 1,000 bomber crewmen serving six months in combat included 712 killed or missing and 175 wounded: 89 percent. By one calculation, barely one in four U.S. airmen completed twenty-five missions over Germany, a minimum quota that was soon raised to thirty and then thirty-five on the assumption that the liberation of France and Belgium and the attenuation of German airpower made flying less lethal.” ― Rick Atkinson, The Guns at Last Night: The War in Western Europe 1944-1945

“Allied air forces flying from England lost twenty bombers a day in March; another three thousand Eighth Air Force bombers were damaged that month. Morale problems could be seen in the decision of nearly ninety U.S. crews in March and April to fly to neutral countries, usually Sweden or Switzerland, to be interned for the duration.” ― Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944

>economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21586520-damning-verdict-bombing-campaign-europe-during-second-world-war-costly
>militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/failurestratbombing.aspx

The only reason they got even a modicum of success was because the Luftwaffe diverted the majority of its best forces to the Eastern Front, up to 80% at one point. The US forces less experienced as they may have been had the productive superiority and size necessary to launch a full scale invasion prior to 1944 and would have had success - the Atlantic Wall was still being finished and only the men that could be spared were left to defend the Western side as the Eastern front sucked up more and more forces.

The British were fucking gits who were still stuck on the 1930s political idea of sticking it to the Russians, while the USA was being pragmatic in wanting to stick it to them after the war was won. The Balkans would have been a catastrophe because the terrain gave the German defenders all the advantages and the closeness to Germany would give them ample supplies to do so.
And as I said, it would have been a failure
True but it would also deny France and Western Germany from Soviet influence or rather further Soviet influence. If I must remind you, after the war the most positive attitude to the liberators of Europe was to the USSR even in France. This has changed but only through the concentrated propaganda of NATO.

We dont celebrate that shit here.

Stalin should've joined the axis

Deal and an admirer of Mussolini's system

Attached: Johnson.jpg (250x330, 23.55K)