Stephen Harding wrote:
: Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

: One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later
: waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill
: the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed
: to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing
: gas and water lines, for more devastating effect.

Firebombing of cities appears to have involved, in general,
heavy HE bombs to break windows and improve the opportunity
of fires to spread; fire bombs to start fires; and delayed-
action anti-personnel bombs to hinder the activities of
firefighters and rescue-workers.

: Today we would regard this as "barbaric" and too directed towards
: "innocent civilians". But back then, "tough luck"! You're with
: "them" and you pay.

Actually, it was certainly regarded as barbaric targeting
of innocent civilians in 1939-1940. At the time there were
almost as many concerns about "collateral damage" as today,
perhaps even more. For example, the British government banned
the bombing of enemy warships in port because it feared that
the civilian population would be hit.

As the war progressed, mentalities hardened, but not to the
extent that the targeting of cities was ever unquestioned
or unchallenged. Nor was it openly acknowledged by wartime
governments that the essential target of such operations
was the civilian population itself. Moral objections against
the policy existed then as much as today; but the struggle
for survival took priority and they were set aside. A good
deal of plain hypocrisy was involved, and many people who
actively supported the policy during the war saw fit to
express their doubts when the war was won -- Churchill, for
example.

--
Emmanuel Gustin