Replies

You disgrace the British Bomber Command specifically that of Sir Arthur Harris, Marshall of the Royal Force, in insinuating they were less than honorable.

Oddly enough, the British themselves seemed to somewhat share my opinion. When the rewards were handed out to high commanders at the end of the war, he was more or less ignored, largely out of discomfort with his methods.

You also have a right to your opinion, but you are blurring the distinction between honorable ends and honorable means.

The Allied end was unquestionably honorable and right, being perhaps the most justified war in history.

However, some of the methods chosen to prosecute that war were less than entirely honorable and decent. This may have inevitable, given the passions of the time, but does not change the morality of the issue.

Let me give you an example. When the war started, a goodly number of enemy aliens were interned in Britain. Once it became known that extermination camps were being used as they were in Germany, would it have beenproper for similar methods to be used against interned German and Italian civilians, quite a few of whom were actually opponents of their home regimes? Of course not.

to malign ... Sir Harris in terms that are anything less than the exemplary honor and heroism they deserve is ... an insult to those who gave their lives so that you can express your comments without consequence or actual basis in fact, for that matter.

I am unaware that Sir Harris gave his life for his country, or for that matter that he was ever in any significant danger during WWII. My criticism is solely of those leaders who decided to use questionable methods to prosecute the war, not of those brave men who fought and died to implement them.

the Germans began the tactic of intentionally bombing civilians over London in 1940.

Not exactly. They started it in Spain, and then at Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc. The targeting of civilians in Britain appears to have started by originally accidental bombing of civilians over London by lost bombers, to which the British retaliated with intentional attacks in Germany, followed by similar retaliation by the Germans.

You are obviously an erudite, well-informed, articulate debater, if not reasonable, one well-honed in the fine art of agreeing to disagree.

I would categorize your responses, illustrations as decent, gentlemanly, not fighting dirty but nevertheless nitpicky, historically/factually ambiguous, a question of interpretation and perspective all well within politically justifiable points of view.

I'm not going to deconstruct your comments point-by-point. You've responded thoughtfully and honestly and that's all I can ever ask of anyone, in agreeing to disagree.

There's only one point I'd like to make in that if I followed the same fallacious logic you've used to mischaracterize Harris in the statement below, I could then make the same assumption about Winston Churchill, being abadnoned. rejected, whatever, let's not quibble, who, as one of the greatest men of history, almost single-handedly winning the war by sheer strength of will, an indefatigable stalwart against the forces oof evil, having oddly enough lost the post-war election despite his garagantun heroism during the war, might make the same erroneous statement/conclusion you made vis a vis Harris.

Oddly enough, the British themselves seemed to somewhat share my opinion

Thank you.
God Bless America.