In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid.
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to failure. Cash is great.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to failure. Cash is great.
Re Mid Beds: Labour 3.0 i.e. 2-1 fav. I don't think we have ever seen a 2-1 favourite in a by-election or individual seat market, or that we ever will again. Quite extraordinary. I have a small bet on the LDs but not feeling very confident, rather wish I hadn't.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
What’s the difference between the Russians and both sides in WWII? I seem to recall residential areas being bombed when I was young. And celebrated by those doing the bombing!
You have a point.
Putin is no worse than Hitler.
Didn't London bomb Berlin before Berlin bombed London?
So no worse than Churchill (on the bombing civilians metric)?
If the version of history that says that Churchill ordered this to make Hitler retaliate against London rather than bombing the RAF is true, does it make Winston an expert strategist, or an evil man who sacrificed his own civilians?
If you asked people in England then, or Ukraine now, would you prefer the Nazis to bomb you or your defences, the "Blitz Spirit" would apply
Warsaw and Rotterdam might beg to differ on "London started the bombing."
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I surprisingly used cash the other day for the first time in ages. It was fortunate I had it. I only had it because I got a new debit card to use in America and needed to use it in an ATM first. The pub's system went down. It was panic. They were having to take customers details who didn't have cash. Fortunately I sailed through the Mayhew. Very lucky as I never use cash otherwise.
The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to failure. Cash is great.
Complexity can also encompass greater resilience.
I recall pointing out that a solution was unnecessarily complicated in a design meeting once.
I was fairly junior at the time, so it was possibly a bit out of turn, but I felt it needed to be said. My concerns were of course summarily dismissed by the senior consultants.
2 years later the plug was pulled and £100m had to be written off by Company X. Too complex to deliver, they said.
Still, the consultants did fine out of it and had already moved on to their next victim. Which of course was the whole point. Doh! Lesson learned.
I can't help but think of that meeting every time a government IT project fails.
Comments
I was fairly junior at the time, so it was possibly a bit out of turn, but I felt it needed to be said. My concerns were of course summarily dismissed by the senior consultants.
2 years later the plug was pulled and £100m had to be written off by Company X. Too complex to deliver, they said.
Still, the consultants did fine out of it and had already moved on to their next victim. Which of course was the whole point. Doh! Lesson learned.
I can't help but think of that meeting every time a government IT project fails.