Nothing really new to add, just that the context needs to be understood before the decisions judged.
In the Pacific war, it could be argued that it would have been a greater crime NOT to have used The Bomb (as we used to call it). Japanese and Allied losses would have been far greater if the inch by inch Pacific battles continued.
Was there another alternative? How many times has been wargamed? What is the break even point for not dropping the Bomb?
Would you shoot down a hijacked airliner that was heading for a civilian centre? We are lucky that we have the luxury of debating such decisions without having to make them.
As for the recognition of allied airmen over Euope by those who were under the barrage, it'd a pity that it is surprising but as time passes, these things fade.
what is a real disgrace for me is that such people as the airmen had to rely on charities such as the Poppy Appeal while govts paid lip service to them.
In the Pacific war, it could be argued that it would have been a greater crime NOT to have used The Bomb (as we used to call it). Japanese and Allied losses would have been far greater if the inch by inch Pacific battles continued.
Was there another alternative? How many times has been wargamed? What is the break even point for not dropping the Bomb?
Would you shoot down a hijacked airliner that was heading for a civilian centre? We are lucky that we have the luxury of debating such decisions without having to make them.
As for the recognition of allied airmen over Euope by those who were under the barrage, it'd a pity that it is surprising but as time passes, these things fade.
what is a real disgrace for me is that such people as the airmen had to rely on charities such as the Poppy Appeal while govts paid lip service to them.
