Um, Gallipoli? Norway? The "soft underbelly of Europe"? Good speaker, yes. Strategic genius? Not by a longshot.

Except that is what they did. Churchill himself spoke about the policy of bombing for purposes of terror after Dresden, indicating that it WAS a reason. To cite Wikipedia: "On 14 February 1942, Directive No. 22 was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be 'focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers.' Factories were no longer targets."

And taking action you know is highly ineffective and liable to kill large numbers of innocents because you can't aim properly is not much more moral than deliberately targeting innocents.

Because there was nothing better! We don't bomb that way because it doesn't work. Lessons of the military take a long time to learn, especially when there are powerful people with a vested interest in pretending they work just fine.

Actually I believe I said it made them more determined to fight back, but whatever.

Well, they didn't need to TAKE the Romainian oil fields since Romania was their ally, and at the time they went after France they were getting many natural resource from the Soviet Union, and they attacked France using pre-war materiel anyway. They also did not so much conquer France as hit them some hard blows, inducing the French to surrender prematurely and the British to cut and run.

It proved no such thing, insomuch as they did not use it in World War Two. The Luftwaffe was a tactical air force, and was infamous ineffective at their one ad hoc attempt at strategic bombing - the Blitz or the Battle for Britain. Aside from that disaster, German bombing was entirely tactical and they did not even bother to develop a long range or serious heavy bomber. In fact, most strategic bombing advocates cite this lack on Germany's part as a crucial factor in their military failure.

They saw first hand the actual inefficacy of the tactic. Aside from revenge or an arrogant assumption of their own superiority, their experiences should have argued against the strategic bombing campaign.

They talk about it because of the horrific death tolls. As you say, not something to bother the Nazis. It was the inspiration for one of Kurt Vonnegut's books, though I can't recall which one (Slaughterhouse Seven? ). That proves nothing regarding the actual cause of defeat. There isn't much military glory in winning because you had access to superior resources, a larger population and your most significant actions taken towards the overall victory were all in the field of production.

The unpopularity of an idea does not invalidate it. Anyway, when was the Wannsee Conference held? 1942. After the whole world was basically piling on top of Germany. Do you really think we did all we could have for the Jews?

Ding, ding. These WERE the people who got outthought by Hitler for many years, after all. And yes with the evil. Their one mitigating factor is that the other guys were worse (I'm talking about the Western Allies, BTW; I concede zero moral high ground to the Soviet Union, whose sole grace was being less adept at treachery than Nazi Germany, and who, let us not forget, was ALLIED to Germany and an equal partner in the act that supposedly incited the war - the invasion of Poland).

Yeah, pretty appalling, when you think about it, isn't it?

There is something to be said for being part of an alliance that includes all three global superpowers in the history of the world - such a team is VERY hard to beat, no matter how hard they try to throw the game. Don't forget, they were up against an enemy that devoted large numbers of troops and rolling stock and other materiel and resources to non-productive ends like death camps, especially camps aimed at eliminating a disproportionately well-educated and technically skilled group of citizens, who were not notably disloyal or political liabilities.

Except we were not exactly doing anything evil. Our sins there were sins of omission in carrying out justice, and explained away by national security interests.

Screw the Germans, I care about us. I don't like the government of my country doing evil, and coasting on the juxtaposition of darker evils for camouflage. We say "Never again" regarding the Holocaust, but I am more worried about repeating the other things that people let slide because the Holocaust occupies all the moral indignation. Death camps in Europe seem rather unlikely. We repeated the errors of denazification in Iraq with the deBa'athization, that had the same practical results, which no doubt encouraged and abetted the insurgency. I guess Iran is not nearly as effective a stalking horse as the Soviet Union was in inducing the cooperation of captives. If we can repeat practical mistakes, we are plainly not immune to making the same moral mistakes.

If only Dubya had been so committed.