A bit of a tangent, but I'm curious what you (no1) think of the Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo (and others) bombing raids. Were they justified by military necessity or war crimes (or something in between)?
(Sh76 replied to No1Marauder.)
"Were they justified by military necessity or war crimes (or something in between)?"
Regarding 'military necessity', there's not a 'one size fits all' answer because the military circumstances varied.
One could more convincingly make the case that bombing Dresden (which was hardly
defended at all) in February 1945 was overkill, where the civilian casualties outweighed
the marginal military utility.
One should note that RAF Bomber Command policy (approved at the highest level
by Winston Churchill, though Arthur Harris later got most of the blame and censure)
had long been to kill (one euphemism was 'dehouse' ) as many German civilians
as possible in the hope that German morale would break. After the bombing of Hamburg,
Albert Speer (pessimistically) said that several more attacks like it could break German morale.
By the way, after the bombing of Hamburg, there were many civilians horribly burned,
who had no realistic hope of survival (the medical services were overwhelmed),
and faced only agonizing deaths. Reportedly, the Nazis organized some 'mercy squads'
of volunteers who shot some of these people in order to spare them further suffering.
If still conscious, some of these people reportedly said that they preferred quicker deaths.