Area bombing is not a dirty word.

On 01 Jan 2004 22:09:46 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: (ArtKramr)


Hindsight is always 20-20. The bottom line is we beat the *******s and left
Germany a smoking, smoldering, burning ruin. Not bad for a bunch of 19 year
old
kids vs the supermen. Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider
all
that we did right. And we did a lot more right than we did wrong.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Agreed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On the one hand, it *is* dirty.
Area Bombing is a dirty word-- it represents the death of many
people on both sides, many horribly.
I agree with that. But for those who think it is the MOST dirty
word, let me give a few others.
Genocide. Dachau, The Eastern Front, Nanking.

If we had been fighting an enemy that avoided attacking civilians,
that abided by the laws of war, that refrained from imposing
dictatorship at home and abroad, mass bombing raids would be an
atrocity-- they wouldn't have been needed. (For that matter, there
wouldn't have been a war). But we were fighting governments that had
proven that literally NO atrocity was beyond them. Any, literally any
means to defeat them was not simply allowed, but required of any moral
natiuon.

And to those who say that it was "too horrible", I would point out
the beneficiaries of these battles that few think of today-- every
Japanese and German citizen who grows up, protests and votes in a
state where such actions are not fraught with danger.