Return to Index  


August 30 2007 at 6:55 AM
Michael Dorosh 

Response to Re: Bomber Command

Ken says:

I dont think changing the wording is censorship. The original statement is more slander than changing it would be censorship. The WM has their facts wrong. They are simply fixing an error.

The two main factors behind this controversy are...

''The value and morality of the strategic offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested....''

''Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations....although bomber command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war''

1./ Did BC/USAAF accomplish anything during their respective learning stages and later missions?

To say no to this shows an extreme ignorance regarding the history of WW2

Why does suggesting that the value and morality of the CBO is contested represent slander? Contesting the ultimate value of something is not the same as saying it had no value at all. It's a strawman. It is not inconsistent to stand up and say that the CBO was of dubious value and morality, and in the same breath say that the bombing was within the realm of acceptable conduct and provided tangible military results.

This message has been edited by dorosh on Aug 30, 2007 6:56 AM

 Respond to this message