1) Besides the question. It may be mentioned.ljadw wrote:1) that this type of raids is illegal today ,is irrelevant:today PC is reigning
2) there was no possibility in WWII to choose between a precise bombardment,and area bombings:both could result in massive civilian losses
3) No one did care about enemy civilian losses :you can't wage war without killing enemy civilian losses :without British civilian losses,Coventry was not possible
4)Enemy civilian losses were justified :if the crew of a Panther was a legitimate target,why should one spare the civilians who were producing the Panthers,the railway personnell that was transporting the Panthers,ammunition and supplies,the farmers who were producing food for the workers and the crew of the Panther,etc....
5)If one allied/German soldier was spared by the death of 100 German/allied civilians,then it was legitimate to attack/no to spare these civilians .
6)As no one (German or allied )was condemned for air attacks,the air attacks were legitimate .
7)As it was impossible to destroy marshalling-yards,without spare the inner cities,saying that the marshalling yards of Dresden could be destroyed without damaging/destroying the city,is nonsens .As you know,the allies were not able to destroy the marshalling-yards of Kortrijk,Merelbeke,Leuven ,etc,without incurring the risk of damaging these cities.In fact,these cities were damaged/destroyed,but the damage to the marshalling-yards was insignifiant .The same happened in Dresden,Rouen,etc.
The distinction ,in wartime,between civilians and military,is a theoretical and Jezuitical one .
2) Precision bombardments were done by the US Airforce and they certainly kill less civilians than an area attack
3) Killing civilians is acceptable but that does not mean that one has to kill more than absolutely necessary
7) The attacks specifically directed against marshalling yards would never kill the amount of people as in Dresden