Give details and why you think it was or was not.... pllzzzz
2007-10-15 23:34:45 · 6 answers · asked by soni 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
'The Blitz' was the bombing campaign carried out against England and no, it was not successful. The destruction was used as propaganda to harden the british people against the Germans and had very little effect on wartime production. It actually made it easier to justify the later and very successful bombing campaigns by the RAF and USAF against the Germans.
The blitzkrieg (lightning war) was however very succesful in both western and eastern europe - so long as the sun shone and there was petrol to power the vehicles.
2007-10-16 00:50:22 · answer #1 · answered by cernunnicnos 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
In short no it wasn't. The intention of the Blitz was to demoralize the British public, this didn't work it only united us against the Germans in the same way us bombing Dresden and Hamburg on united the Germans against us. The main reason why it was ineffective was the German tactic before the Blitz was attack the RAF 24/7, this would have destroy the RAF and let the Germans cross the channel freely. I believe this was one of the main reasons why the Germans lost the war.
2007-10-18 05:34:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you are referring to the London Blitz, then the answer has to be that it was not effective. Whilst a great deal of damage was done, it did nothing to help the German war effort and eventually led to reprisal raids on Germany which were far more devasting.
2007-10-16 00:28:27 · answer #3 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Redunico, are you talking about the German blitzes in general? Because I think the questioner is talking about the London Blitz.
2007-10-15 23:45:36 · answer #4 · answered by plwimsett 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
very effective!
2007-10-19 23:37:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the Germans took over Poland in a month, and France in 6 days.
2007-10-15 23:41:22 · answer #6 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 0⤊ 9⤋