> The point is that modern war is an industrial process. And had been for at least 300 years at that time. Germany did know the 30 year war. It was a bit of a

> The point is that modern war is an industrial process. And had been for at least 300 years at that time. Germany did know the 30 year war. It was a bit of a sore point. And it is obvious that you can't fight a war without industrial support. Economical warfare was also at least 300 years old back then. Neither is even mentioned in the article. It is also a much wider and more abstract point than the bombing of Hamburg. The article mixes ethical, moral, economical, technical, strategic and political ideas and ideology until the point is utterly lost. > Long after this machine could materially affect the course of the war That's very much a hindsight argument that may sound rational, but omits a lot of considerations. The Germans kept fighting until the bitter end; why didn't they stop if they could no longer affect the outcome of the war? There apparently was a reason to keep going. Even after the capitulation, German troops made casualties. Pure revenge, paving the way for the troops, and stopping the approaching Soviet army may also have influenced UK/US policy, as did perhaps the idea that Germany really had to be prevented from rebuilding its army, a painful lesson from WW1. > the allies seemingly unable to switch it off They did stop bombing once Germany had capitulated though, so they did have that capacity. It was not an autonomous process.