The thing you all need to understand about this particular bombing strategy is that the whole point was to kill large numbers of civilians (the theory advanced was that this would lead to a collapse in morale and so hasten the end of the war, which was... remarkable... given that its principle advocates were senior bods in the RAF who had surely noted that this was not what had happened when British cities were subjected to intensive bombing) and that it was a complete failure in all respects other than the body count, actually having the opposite effect to what was intended.
Additionally, just because one side commits atrocities does not negate the atrocities (which may well have been considerably worse, as they were in this instance) committed by the other. There is no need to defend appalling actions committed seventy years ago out of nervousness as to what the implications of doing so might be.
True... but the RAF's heart was in the right place even if their actions in retrospect were wrong.
I don't really see the benefit of trying to apply modern morals to a very imprecise war over half a century ago. I mean Germany didn't have segregated units... the United States did. No one is saying the Allies were perfect. After the debacle in the other thread where some people were taking out a tape measure to figure out the square footage of concentration camps liberate so they could award bragging rights via a medal system I just don't know what the point it is.
I mean really. So what? Warfare for the US and Britain has gotten a lot more civilized... if you can say that about war. Why go back and split hairs? I know the evil stuff people did right here in America in the 1940s. I'm sure going to war didn't improve their sense of morality.
Poll
