Gibt es historische Beweise dafür, dass Bombenangriffe Regime zur Kapitulation zwingen?
https://www.driscollglobe.com/p/the-escalation-trap
Gibt es historische Beweise dafür, dass Bombenangriffe Regime zur Kapitulation zwingen?
https://www.driscollglobe.com/p/the-escalation-trap
11 Kommentare
This kind of media framing shapes public opinion well before objective analysis can even begin. The embedded interests of military industrial complex figures presenting as neutral experts is a critical issue.
Japan, WW2. It just leaps to mind.
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
It really depends on circumstances. In case of iran, they are betting on the chances they have and that is making war too costly. After all US has declared their intention that they won’t accept anything but total surrender. Though…I wonder how much of both sides gial will remain same after time passes. I have a feeling this war might take a turn for the worse for both.
Not necessarily bombing campaigns, but the french revolution, the Russian revolution all had foreigners supporting an uproar.
Japan WW2, Germany WW2, probably many many more examples were bombed to submission.
Change doesn’t always come from within without help from the outside. People saying democracy needs to come from within are naive. The population will need to want it, but they need help from outside.
forgive me for having not yet read the article but i do recall hearing a lot about this during the start of the Ukraine war. If we look at some historical examples, the Blitz on London didn’t, Viet-man and some would argue that not even Operation Meetinghouse forces the Japanese to capitulate until the nukes dropped. Even modern day, did the bombing of Gaza really change much?
There are some who actually argue that the indiscriminate bombings of population centres might actually strengthen the resolve of populations with a bit of a „screw them“ that we saw in the Blitz. It’s also going to be a rather nasty black mark on the international standing of the attacker.
Maybe it doesn’t force the regime to surrender, but cuts Iran’s sponsoring of terrorists organizations all across the middle east, deplets their missile, drone and nuclear program/capabilities, and also is a strong response to this terrorist regime that killed thousands of civilians. Not gonna say it doesn’t worth to bomb them.
Very amateurish piece. The headline would have you believe the article goes over the history of bombing campaigns, but in reality, it’s just an ad hominem rant about CNN and the people they bring to cover the war. Of course it’s going to be generals and administration officials, whom do they want to analyse the events? Ice cream vendors? There is literally only one sentence talking about the effectiveness of bombing campaigns, quoting „a professor“ with no relevant credentials that we are told of, who claims that no such attempts have resulted in regime change. Without going over a single example. Toilet paper news article.
Bombing Japan caused it to surrender, though that required using nukes.
I heard some analyst (sorry, I forgot where I heard this) say something like: „You can bomb their headquarters and you’ll.. destroy their coffee machine, but then they’ll just meet at the café.“
Germany World War 2. The Germans were on the run but bomber Harris’s tactics did a lot of damage in lots of ways.