I don't get the moral repugnance people seem to have now for The Bomber Offensive in the second world war.
Back then it was a war for survival against been enslaved and exterminated what alternative was there ?
Albert Speer stated categorically that the bombing of the fatherland was what won the war, the guns, men and aircraft that were tied up in air defense especially the no of 88mm guns used for aa and if I remember correctly about a million men, all these could have been used to fight on the ground. The men and weapons could have changed the outcome of the war on the ground Albert Speer thought so and who better could judge the situation ?