A little background on the "Strategic-Bombing" theory: According to Bevin Alexander in How Hitler could have Won World War II, the Fatal Errors that led to Nazi defeat, Hitler's first error occurred during "the Battle of Britain. Germany was bombing Britain's sector stations and "The RAF began to stagger. Between August 23 and September 6, 466 fighters were destroyed or badly damaged (against 352 German losses). . . And the real problem was not machines but men. During the period 103 RAF pilots were killed and 128 seriously wounded, one fourth of those available. A few more weeks of such loses and Britain would no longer have an organized air defense. "At this moment, Adolf Hitler changed the direction of the battle - and the war. If he had allowed the Luftwaffe to continue its blows to the sector stations, Sea Lion could have been carried out and Hitler could have ended the war with a swift and total victory. Instead, he made the first great blunder in his career, a blunder so fundamental that it changed the course of the entire conflict . . . on the night of August 24, ten German bombers lost their way and dropped their loads on central London. RAF Bomber Command launched a reprisal raid on Berlin the next night with eighty bombers - the first time the German capital had been hit. Bomber Command followed up this raid with several more in the next few days. Hitler, enraged, announced he would 'eradicate' British cities. He called off the strikes against sector stations and ordered terror bombing of British cities. "This abrupt reversal of strategy did not rest entirely on Hitler's desire for vengeance. The new campaign had a lengthy, highly touted theoretical background. It was the first extensive experiment to test the 'strategic-bombing' theory espoused after World War I by an Italian, Giulion Douhet. His argument was that a nation could be forced to its knees by massive bombing attacks against its centers of population, government, and industry. Such attacks would destroy the morale of the people and war production, and achieve victory without the use of ground forces." "The . . . campaign . . . aimed not at winning a battle but at destroying the morale of the enemy population. If it succeeded, as Douhet had predicted, an invasion of Britain would not even be necessary. The disheartened, defeated people of Britain would raise the white flag merely to stop the bombing. "Hitler was the first to attempt Douhet's theory, but his bombs failed to break the British people. World War II proved that human beings can endure a great deal more destruction from the skies than Douhet had thought." Now while you say that "Dresden . . . can't ever be justified" in your book and that "it was monstrous of Churchill to have ordered it," you didn't live through the London bombing - the Battle of Britain. I wonder how many Londoners who survived it shared your viewpoint. But be that as it may, I think Douhet's argument still held credibility in a lot of British and American minds during the Dresden bombing. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Geary Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:52 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: When a civilized society fights a barbarous one LH: >>You ignore the first part of Diana West's article in order to be smug and morally superior. Now we have two examples to counter Judy's balderdash.<< It's all trash, Lawrence. It's that "You can't handle the truth" tough talking garbage that the rightwing loves to spout thinking themselves the true blue reality-ites. You're smarter than that. Why would you post such drivel? Dresden was a monstrous crime against humanity. It did nothing to end the war. It can't ever be justified in my book and it was monsterous of Churchill to have ordered it. It made him a soul-mate of Hitler. I realize that the rightwing in this country hates civilzation, but they'll just have to get used to it, we live by laws. Mike Geary Memphis