I had a lengthy and tiresome dispute on another forum (GA rather than historical) with someone who had been duped by reading Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civilians in WWII a Necessity or a Crime? by A.C.Grayling into believing that the allied bomber campaign was “a war crime of huge dimensions”

Pressed on what alternative Grayling proposed for the beleaguered Britain of 1940 he eventually responded with

I’ve just re-skim-read Grayling, and his answer to the question of what else should have been done is fighter-protected precision bombing, more akin to what the 8th Air Force did.

I am sure nobody here needs me to highlight the ludicrous impracticality of the suggestion?

A bit of later backtracking saw the position change to “Harris and Churchill were the perpetrators of the crime” thus absolving the crews of condemnation as war criminals.

When I pointed out that this was the “Only following orders” defence, and that to accept it would mean absolving concentration camp guards, torturers, executioners and all involved in The Final Solution, the discussion came to a sudden end.

I hate it when people with little knowledge and understanding read a book written in the familiar “Lets find something controversial to write about an historical event” business plan (Are you still here Dr North?) and treat it as gospel.

Moggy 😡