>of course, and other horrors, a feat that the prior crop of other-sect rulers, even with billions in “US contractor” assistance, had not deigned to manage:
Is there evidence to suggest that living standards in places like mosul are better now than they were before?
>However, it is instructive to note that German war production increased throughout WWII until late 1944/early 1945
I know, however it would have been greater without allied bombing, thats why i used the word inhibited.
>Of course not.
So you made it up. Tsk.
>had nothing to do with how the war finally ended.
No one here claimed that.
Aerial attacks though certainly did contribute to the defeat of the axis powers.
>of course, and other horrors, a feat that the prior crop of other-sect rulers, even with billions in “US contractor” assistance, had not deigned to manage:
Is there evidence to suggest that living standards in places like mosul are better now than they were before?
The bombing campaigns unquestionably inhibited axis production and made ground movements during day time quite a challenge.
Arguably this would have been due to the cessation of such air-strikes.
If NVA incursions towards saigon were met with a linebacker style campaign or campaigns the nva effort would likely have failed.