Dave, you're letting your emotions distract you to the extent that you're not reading my posts carefully enough, as far as I can see. And you need to do some more reading of materials that are already out there: such as "A History of Bombing" by Sven Lindqvist, a Swede. The book was written in 2001, and covers and dates the key decisions made regarding bombing from its earliest historical inception up to the present day.

I never said that Germany was not an aggressor, so don't suggest that I did. I never excused Germany for their hideous crimes in the Holocaust, so don't suggest that I did. Prior to WWII the German Condor Legion terror bombed Guernica in Spain. Germany began WWII with their open aggression against Poland, and they bombarded Warsaw indiscriminately with bombing and artillery...but it was a fortified city defending itself with dug-in troops and artillery of its own. In the West they terror bombed Rotterdam in 1940, in an effort to force a quick(er) surrender by resisting Dutch forces in that city.

They scrupulously avoided bombing British cities until Sept 1940, however, for a variety of reasons: One was that they lacked an effective strategic bomber force, having an air force equipped only with smaller 2-engine tactical bombers, not really suited to area bombing of cities. The British did not lack such a strategic bomber force (nor did the USA). Hitler feared British retaliation if British cities were bombed. He also still viewed England as a potential ally in the future fight against Communist Russia, and did not want to alienate them unnecessarily or even seriously damage them if they could be convinced to make peace and join Germany. It may have been for this reason that the Panzer divisions were never ordered in to crush British forces at Dunkirk. They could have been, but they were held back. I think Hitler was enough out of touch that he actually believed that if Churchill was only not in office the British could easily be persuaded to join with Germany in a common cause. Fat chance!

Churchill decided as early as May 1940 to begin strategic bombing of Germany. That decision was never made public. Why? I quote directly from J.M. Spaight, author of "Bombing Vindicated" (an enthusiastic endorsement of the Allie's WWII strategic bombing campaign): "Because we were doubtful of the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of the eleventh of May, 1940, the publicity which it deserved. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision. It was as heroic, as self-sacrificing, as Russia's decision to adopt her policy of 'scorched earth'. It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kiev and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol, in the face." So who can the good citizens of those British cities thank for their ordeal?

You don't get this do you? I am NOT trying to excuse Nazi atrocities (which were extraordinary), I am simply pointing out that they and the Japanese were not alone in committing atrocities, well-planned ones, and that if they had won the war (highly unlikely) there would have been a different set of war criminals on trial...and a different popular view of history in the minds of 98% of the present population.

People will insist on believing only the official line which is: "We and ours are always good. They and theirs are always bad."

Sorry. It ain't that simple.

The Luftwaffe was not ordered to area bomb British cities until early September 1940. The British had been area bombing German cities since May 1940. That's a window of delay of 4 months before a German tit for tat response. The rest was inevitable. In the end he who had more bombers and a bigger war industry killed more of the other guy's civilians, but of course both sides gave it their utmost before it was over.

In the Pacific theatre it was the Japanese who first terror bombed cities...in China. It was the Americans who finished up on Japan.

Basically, whoever had the strength (and equipment) to do it and get away with it did it! But the Germans waited 4 months before doing it back to England. It's really rather surprising that they did. The British were not strong enough to mount truly damaging raids (of sufficient size, I mean) until 1943. From there it escalated steadily until the final act: the incineration of Dresden. They were able to destroy an entire city, and they did. Quite unnecessarily. The war was already decisively won.

Here's another interesting note: On the first day of the 2nd World War, in 1939, FDR in the still neutral USA appealed to the warring powers to "under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities"...terror bombing, in other words. All the involved powers agreed (verbally) to that proposition, but the British were not too happy about it...because it gave them little or no way to effectively strike at Germany at that point in the war. So in May 1940, they quietly decided to do it anyway. They began the strategic bombing offensive.

Unpalatable? Tough. It's history. You may not like it, but you cannot deny it if you bother to check it out.

And if you think this means I am supporting Naziism you are very mistaken. I am entirely happy that Hitler did not win his war and instead went down to destruction. Nor am I denying any of the wellknown German atrocities against humanity. I'm simply being even-handed and saying what is barely ever heard anywhere: the whole truth, rather than just the fashionable version.

- LH