Yes it was. The Allies explicitly acknowledged and embraced the tactic of “terror” bombing (the word appears repeatedly) of civilians. One Army Air Corps general, one Frederick Anderson, rationalised the slaughter of German civilians at the time, expressing the pretty concept of terror bombing as morally edifying: terror bombing was: “not expected in itself to shorten the war ... However, it is expected that the fact that Germany was struck all over will be passed on, from father to son, thence to grandson; that a deterrent for the initiation of future wars will definitely result.”
Isn’t it funny how what goes around comes around? The Germans learned the lesson all too well — pounded into them by an America that, having long ago forgotten its services as moral instructor to the German people, has discovered a latter-day horror of terrorism. Sure enough, the Germans declined to be a part of the current adventure in Iraq — and are despised for it by the sons and grandsons of those bomber crews.
Incorrect.
One Army Air Corps general, one Frederick Anderson, rationalised the slaughter of German civilians at the time
Frederick Anderson, as a brigadier general of the Air Force, was hardly the authority on Allied military doctrine - however he chose to describe what he believed he was doing, he was following the orders of his commander whose stated purpose both privately and publicly was quite different from Anderson's statements.
Perhaps Anderson saw himself as committing crimes and perhaps he personally did - but the intent of Allied bombardment was to shorten the war and save the lives of their own troops.
The Germans learned the lesson all too well — pounded into them by an America that, having long ago forgotten its services as moral instructor to the German people, has discovered a latter-day horror of terrorism.
An eloquently stated moral equivalence between atrocities like 9/11 and legitimate military operations like the bombing of Dresden.
But you go further:
Sure enough, the Germans declined to be a part of the current adventure in Iraq — and are despised for it by the sons and grandsons of those bomber crews.
This postulates a moral equivalence between USAF WWII crews, Mohammed Atta and our currently serving forces in Iraq.
I'm going to assume that you are playing devil's advocate and are not actually as morally bankrupt as these statements imply.
The bombing of Dresden was a military necessity undertaken against a military target by commanders whose goal was to shorten a war and spare the lives of their troops.
The Iraq intervention was a military necessity undertaken against the military targets of a regime that had already engaged ina cts of war against the United States and it was undertaken with the express purpose of saving American lives by taking the battle to terrorists rather than waiting for many more atrocities on the scale of 9/11.
9/11 was an act of pure criminality undertaken by evil men who wished to murder innocent Americans solely because they didn't like the fact that the government of Saudi Arabia invited the United States to station troops in Saudi territory.
There is no equivalence between the first two undertakings and the last-named crime.
The Germans displayed great moral cowardice in following a genocidal maniac from 1933-1945. They paid the full price of that cowardice.
The Germans in 2003 exhibited great moral cowardice in choosing to appease Islamists and they will pay the full price at the hands of the people they have foolishly appeased.
If they manage to escape the full brunt of the Islamist menace gestating in their midst it will be because the United States will rescue them despite their malfeasance.